Most women who were once patients in a mental hospital can be trusted as babysitters

Scroll to see replies

Asking that is like asking “most women who’ve been in hospital with a broken leg should still be able to do sports” if they have recovered of course they can

Physical injury can heal much faster then mental 'injury'. If one has broken bones it can be repaired and new bones can grow in its place. Comparing that to a mentally unstable individual to look after a child after they have been reformed and released rings alarm bells for me.

Reply 21

abdce2017

Many people in psychiatric units are there for their own safety, rather than anyone else’s. A lot of people will be there for something such as self harm, depression, anxiety, or an eating disorder, which don’t tend to put others at risk. Why would you not let a recovered anorexic look after children?

Reply 22

TimmonaPortella

Erm, what were they in for? How long ago was it? How well do I know them? How do I come to be asking them to babysit my kids? Is it something they do for money or is it just a favour to me?

Original post by abdce2017

A lot of people will be there for something such as self harm, depression, anxiety

Yeah, they all seem like exactly the sort of traits I'd want in someone who was going to be trusted with my kids.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 23

Doones

You don't generally ask a babysitter if they've been a mental health patient.

Edit to confirm: answered agree.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 24

Zechs

Original post by Sabertooth

The question doesn't say women who were sectioned they could have been their of their own free will. Just wanted to point that out. :smile:

To me whether you are a voluntary patient or not doesn't matter. If we are to assume this person applying for the babysitter position puts it on their CV I'll judge it the same way though of course based on the individual context of the mental problems.

I however, can't judge for example a person voluntarily looking for CBT therapy for depression to a more dangerous mental patient but it would still raise alarm bells.

I am not sure how this question came about , I wouldn't think most employers would have a positive outlook on mental health issues. I can't blame a parent for not wanting to employ someone potentially dangerous either.

I don't even think this is a realistic proposition and to be honest I wouldn't want to deal with people with such issues, it's really stressful and just by observing peoples behaviour you can tell when someone is not all there.

Reply 25

abdce2017

Original post by TimmonaPortella

Yeah, they all seem like exactly the sort of traits I'd want in someone who was going to be trusted with my kids.

My point is that a lot of people who have spent time in psychiatric units pose no threat to others, and are more likely to be victims of crimes and things like that, and threads such as this only encourage the stigmatisation of mental illness. Some mentally ill people may not even outwardly exhibit signs of their illness, so there would be no reason not to trust them with young children

Reply 26

Chicken.M.

Original post by Good bloke

Simple, but slightly strange. Why would anyone who has been treated and is now well not be trusted? Would you not trust someone who had once had cancer but who was now well?

I guess many of those who say 'no' conflate mental illnesses of all types with paranoid schizophrenic killing sprees.

Trust is earned. You don't start off with it. Why would you trust anyone that you've only just met?

Reply 27

TimmonaPortella

Original post by abdce2017

They're not inherently a threat, but the traits you described don't cry out 'safe pair of hands'. I'm not suggesting that they'd be a danger to the children.

Reply 28

minhee

What type of crazy?

Depression or fantasies about chopping people up and putting them in the freezer?

Reply 29

username1402543

Original post by ChickenMadness

Trust is earned. You don't start off with it. Why would you trust anyone that you've only just met?

Because you are unaware of their background? And what they true personality traits are really like?- Mind you, this would not come out until they portray their 'true colors/'

Reply 30

Sabertooth

Original post by Mancini

I don't want to engage in this discussion until I've got a few more votes in the poll, I just wanted to stress that the question didn't specify that the women were sectioned. In the law, there's a difference but I find it interesting you don't see one. :smile:

But I do want to get back to you. :wink:

Reply 31

Zechs

Original post by Sabertooth

I don't want to engage in this discussion until I've got a few more votes in the poll, I just wanted to stress that the question didn't specify that the women were sectioned. To me there's a difference but I find it interesting you don't see one. :smile:

But I do want to get back to you. :wink:

Well then specify it in the question and stop using it as an excuse, it's your role as the person asking the question to make it clear what we are discussing.

Reply 32

Sabertooth

Original post by Mancini

Well then specify it in the question and stop using it as an excuse, it's your role as the person asking the question to make it clear what we are discussing.

The question is pretty clear. You made the assumption.

Reply 33

Zechs

Original post by Sabertooth

The question is pretty clear. You made the assumption.

It's obviously not clear because you are having to interject with 'ooh I did not write that' either we are discussing it in general or we are not and you did indeed write about the issue in general terms which was your decision.

Reply 34

username2455183

Doesn't it completely depend on why they were in hospital in the first place? You can be in for EDs, suicidal thoughts/self harm, depression as well as what people normal associate with mental hospitals like personality disorders etc. I'd be happy for someone to watch my kids if they were only ever a danger to themselves (when they were hospitalised) rather than others and had been in a long period of recovery (no recent relapses). Anything else and I'd worry even if it was irrational :smile:

Reply 35

Kindred

Doesn't matter if they were in a mental hospital, what matters is why and if it will affect them and their ability to care for a child currently.
I've been an in-patient at a (private*) mental hospital and I'm qualified in childcare and volunteer at a youth group. People think I'm great with the kids and my mental health has never been an issue.
*I specify private because they have lower requirement for admission, so somebody could be admitted privately with issues that were not severe enough for NHS admission.

Sectioning or serious mh conditions are a different matter and may be good reason for people not to care for children. That should be looked at on an individual basis though. Just having been in a mental hospital is not enough.

Reply 36

Good bloke

Original post by Mancini

Well then specify it in the question and stop using it as an excuse, it's your role as the person asking the question to make it clear what we are discussing.

The question is perfectly clear and simple. You obviously want to answer a question that wasn't asked, or to answer the one that was asked as if it were a different one.

Reply 37

Good bloke

Original post by ChickenMadness

Trust is earned. You don't start off with it. Why would you trust anyone that you've only just met?

Of course. But the question deals specifically with hospitalisation for reasons of mental health. If you have other, unconnected, reasons for not trusting someone then that is a separate matter not covered by the question.

For instance, I would not trust any five-year old, in any state of mental or physical health, to babysit a child, and I might not trust a person who has received treatment for a mental health problem if I believed they were untrustworthy. But the question doesn't ask that. It essentially asks whether you would discount such a person for the sole reason of prior hospitalisation for a mental health problem. I wouldn't.

It is interesting how many people say they would be ultra-cautious with their children but in practice will certainly end up leaving their children in the care of people whose previous mental health history they will have no idea about. Every parent leaves their child in the care, at some stage, of a neighbour, a relative, a parent of another child at the same school or sports club, a teacher, a sports coach, a childcare assistant, a nurse, a doctor, about whom they have no idea and make no enquiry.

Reply 38

Doones

Original post by Good bloke

It is interesting how many people say they would be ultra-cautious with their children but in practice will certainly end up leaving their children in the care of people whose previous mental health history they will have no idea about. Every parent leaves their child in the care, at some stage, of a neighbour, a relative, a parent of another child at the same school or sports club, a teacher, a sports coach, a childcare assistant, a nurse, a doctor, about whom they have no idea and make no enquiry.