Hello everyone,
I watched the Panorama programme last night, and like everyone else would like to send my sympathies to Cheryl and Nigel, and also to express my own appreciation for raising awareness of several areas of concern to many people.
Like Germain and Bruce, I too have thoughts about the programme itself, and any comments I make are not intended as criticism of your reasons for taking part in it at all. Eric was your main concern, and I support wholeheartedly your right to express your own concerns, and I only wish Eric and yourselves could have had a better few years.
The programme started with an introduction that said that it would "reveal the results of important new research" or words to that effect. So, perhaps like others, I was expecting that research to be more of a feature - and yet, Clive Ballard and his research only featured for about 2 or 3 minutes, towards the end of the programme. Important though those few minutes were, I felt the structure of the programme did not do justice to the several years of his research. So by the end, I was confused as to what the real purpose of the programme was.
Much as we all feel for the particular experience of Eric and his family, I was left wanting to ask for more evidence that any rapid deterioration such as that described was something that could not have happened anyway, regardless of the use of anti-psychotic drugs. I know that, on the balance of probabilities, the overuse of any drug may be responsible for a range of consequences, and I can only cite my own experience: my relative herself deteriorated very rapidly indeed, so much so that, from being fully active, able-bodied, and relatively "lively" in all ways, she withdrew, declined care, became immobile, showed little interest in anything, and in fact, she could hardly take part in a conversation. All within the space of less than 3 months, and without any anti-psychotic drugs at all being prescribed. In fact, in the space of just 2 years, she has become a totally changed person. Part of my own research into her problems has indicated that if her "underlying medical conditions" were not properly managed, then they could all contribute to her increasing dementia. But I won't go into that because they are not necessarily related to Eric, but I did find myself shivering at the thought of the awful ordeal of being creamed 4-times a day, from head to toe, for his skin condition.
Another "programme issue" I have is the use of phrases like "Spring Mount didn't use them" and "there was another care home nearby which didn't use them", meaning anti-psychotic drugs. That for me is a far too "emotive and unexplained" phrase for a respected series like Panorama, which used to be renowned for balanced journalism. As I understand it, drugs of this nature can only be prescribed by a senior medic, not a "Care Home" or a "nurse" or the Owner/Manager of a Care Home. Too much tabloid-journalism there for my liking. Please correct me if I am wrong here - I have no experience of such drugs. And if Care Homes do just hand out the so-called 'chemical cosh' without anyone being able to challenge it ... then that should have been the main focal point of the programme. But it wasn't.
At the end of the programme, I was left wondering whether Panorama "found" the family involved, or whether "the family involved" approached Panorama? Also, I wonder how long the whole programme-making phase was, from start to finish? Months? Weeks? I fear the programme may have done more harm than good, in the sense that it may make an awful lot of people see problems that may not exist in their own case. I did not find it presented a balanced picture. I found the programme to be fairly amateur.
Sorry, but that's the way I experienced it.
Katie