Internet addiction treatment on the NHS

[suzieseaside]

Now to be treated on the stretched NHS, which recently announced cutbacks on joint replacements, so if you can't walk - tough, you'll have to live with the pain..

Not saying that internet addiction shouldn't be taken seriously by the NHS; gaming disorder has been classified as an addiction by the WHO, but surely the potential problems of excessive internet use have been evident for a long time. It is/was bound to become a problem for some individuals and no doubt puts a strain on their families.

When it happens to children ....... why aren't parents keeping an eye on their childrens' use of the internet (too convenient to let let them play away out of sight?), and shouldn't schools have helped to educate children of the dangers? Or have they? 

Is it so impossible to use the off button or to encourage children to try other pursuits as well as sitting at their computers/tablets/phones for hours?

Maybe some internet giants with their massive profits could consider funding some internet addiction clinics? What do you think?

[023mjc]

I think it's entirely down to the parents.  It's just so easy to tuck them away with an ipad instead of playing or interacting with them.  Take the ipad or phone away - or better still, don't buy them one in the first place.  It's no wonder ( according to tonights TV news) some children are starting school who can't even talk properly.

OK, in todays world it would be totally impractical to disallow children to use computers, but it should be a shared house computer, with limited screen time.  Perhaps they could do a few chores and earn the choice of another 15 minutes or some money.

I'm one of those who needs a joint replacement.  I was told I'm too young - 68. I'll probably be dead before they think I'm old enough.

[margaret*e]

Oh well, look on the bright side, I can stop worrying about losing weight to have my knee replacement.

023that surprises me, I'll be 68 this year and when I was first told I needed a new knee I was 65 and they seemed  more keen for me to get it done before I was 70.

[fallen-archie]

Oh dear, I am not convinced that this represents an appropriate use of NHS resources, addictions need to be tackled but why should it be the NHS that has to do it? As with smoking and drug abuse these are self inflicted and ought to be dealt with by a more appropriate means, ie the private sector or charities. I know that arguably the NHS often has to pick up the pieces and that it is often argued that prevention is cheaper than a cure but once more it comes down to personal responsibility, that appears to be in short supply these days and out of fashion!

[upthecreekyetagain]

Totally agree Archie but where do you draw the line - a large percentage of illnesses and general medical problems are brought on by life style choices.  In my case the cause according to doctors was due to a combination of stress and smoking - obesity can bring on numerous diseases and cause various joint problems - alcohol, liver problems - smoking, almost everything can apparently be blamed on smoking except for STDs

That really only leaves the things that the NHS was designed to deal with; births, infectious diseases and accidents.  

As I suggested on another thread people, and I include myself, expect far too much from the NHS.

[Anonymous]

I thought the same as you. Where do you draw the line? That we all should take more responsibility for our own health is also true.

Should the NHS pay for mental illness and addictions? Sometimes they go hand in hand. One causing the other and visa versa.

The NHS is apparently stretched to its limit so choices need to be made. I'm sure everyone agrees, but if you're the one that falls outside the fix list then we might not be so happy about it.

That's why I think it is very difficult to say who is more deserving than someone else.

It's a difficult thing. Who do you save? The sick mother of a child or the sick child of a mother?

[cee-dee]

I don't think it's as simple as that?

It could be said that those with self inflicted problems should come way down the list but they in turn could then inflict problems on other people?

Is it time the old institutions were re-introduced to contain those with such problems? OK, I see the arms thrown up in horror and the screams of protest but when you see the same people causing trouble to themselves, others and society in general not to mention the cost, it makes you wonder?

[Anonymous]

I don't think it's as simple as that?

As I said CD

It's a difficult thing. Who do you save?

So  who is more worthy, more entitled to help? How do you make that choice?

And what is exactly self inflicted? Who do you mean.

The guy who goes too fast on his motorbike and ends up wrapped around a tree and a vegetable the rest of his life?

Is it the addict that drinks to forget his horrible childhood?

The one who smoked 60 a day because they just can't quit and ends up with COPD?

How do you judge who should get help.

[bankhaunter]

Going down the road of the deserving and undeserving is very dangerous, it makes no allowance for the massive grey area between the extreme examples.

Who makes the decisions, it should certainly not be left to public opinion.

[fallen-archie]

I agree with you there BH, The issue for me is where does responsibility rest, and who should take responsibility? If the person is an addict and have no family to support them, should we allow them to continue to abuse their own bodies and continually cause problems for the nhs or do we need to look elsewhere to help them? We see heroin addicts who fight like fury with ambulance staff when they try to administer narcam to bring them down, it is horrendous to think that the same people continue to pile pressure on our Ambulance services without ever taking some personal responsibility, They require more specialist treatment outside of the nhs however what form that should take I do not know. I think it should include some community service clearing up sharps etc to show what damage they are doing but beyond that I do not know!

[bankhaunter]

I suspect it largely comes down to money, particularly for research. How much is spent on research is largely due to emotional appeal with the general public, hence greatly responsible for the enormous disparities in funding for research on various cancers which bear no relationship to the death rate.

Few care about addicts of any sort other than perhaps those who are directly connected to them.

[cee-dee]

An interesting turn of debate eh?

Self inflicted, just who was I thinking of? = Two main types.

Now FA mentioned addicts fighting ambulance staff. Well have you ever seen those and the other types I was thinking of fighting the cops?

I was thinking of "drug addicts" and "alcohol addicts". If it were possible to count and save the cost of police time spent on dealing with them, I think the savings would more than pay for the shortcomings of the NHS?

Just to take one example. A bloke  is chucked out of a pub or club because of his drunken behaviour. He just will not shut up and go home. Two cops arrive and try to be diplomatic in persuading him the clear off home. He keeps on and on, threatened with arrest for a Public Order offence, he just keeps on mouthing off profanities. Threatened with arrest several times, he keeps on so finally the cops have had enough and move in to arrest him and then the fun starts. With superhuman drink-fuelled strength, he's resisting, fighting, biting, spitting in the face of the cops so before he can be put in the van to the cop shop, it takes another four cops to handcuff him and bundle him in the van. Then he's hammering hell out of the van. When eventually he's got to the cop-shop, it takes another six cops to carry him, fighting mad inside. At the custody desk, they can't get any sense out of him, not even his name so the six cops have to manhandle him in to the drunks cell. After all that, what happens? A cop has to sit outside the cell for ages to watch that he doesn't harm himself, that is, after the fight in the cell to remove everything with which he could harm himself. In the morning, what does he get? A minor fine? How much has all that cost?

There are some for which the above scenaario has been played out many times. There comes a time when enough's enough surely?

[**bustysinclaire**]

Mmmmm, fair reasoning there CD.

[bankhaunter]

But the large majority of alcoholics are not a problem for the police, many drunks that are, are not alcoholics.

[cee-dee]

I suppose it depends on how you define "alcoholic"?

Problematic drunkeness shows up in many ways? I think millions of people enjoy "a drink" without ever causing a problem but those that do repeatedly should bear the cost of dealing with them.

[bankhaunter]

It varies between those for whom the most important thing in their life comes out of a bottle and those who cannot go 24 hours without a drink.

I've known a few.

[cee-dee]

Thankfully I've never been addicted to anything. Drunken people irritate me, nay, annoy me!

[**bustysinclaire**]

Lol, you do have a addiction CD but won't admit it, or possibly are not even aware of it. It doesn't have to be drink or drugs or food etc.

[cee-dee]

Go on, let's have it? (denying the JW version of "the truth"?)

[astrologica]

Addiction to alcohol is a terrible thing. I have seen this first hand, as a close friend is an alcoholic. It is tragic to watch the decline. At one time she was a beautiful woman who had everything...but now she is reduced to a bag of bones, with multiple health problems brought on by drinking, and confined to a wheelchair. Her partner is devoted, and does everything for her..and I mean 'everything'. All her friends have abandoned her and my sister and I are the only ones who visit. When we visit, whatever the time of day, she has a glass of wine in her hand. Thousands and thousands of pounds have been spent on her by the NHS, all wasted, because she won't cooperate with the recovery process. She was given a much coveted place in rehab for 16 weeks, but checked out after four weeks. But they continue to waste precious resources on her when it is obvious that it is pointless. The one single thing that would have helped, psychiatric help, never happened. People addicted to alcohol should receive initial help, but if it becomes evident that they are not willing to cooperate then why waste precious resources on them? 

Drug addicts should not have a single penny spent on them..there is plenty of advice and warning on the dangers of drug addiction, so those who ignore those warnings have only themselves to blame.

No doubt there will soon be strong warnings about internet addiction, but people will ignore them too. The internet can be such a toxic thing for young people, I fear that the psychiatric problems we are seeing in young people are just the tip of the iceberg. It's a sad old world out there.