The argument that greater funding for mental health services will reduce the suicide rate is inherently flawed, Professor Jorm maintains — simply because, we have and it hasn’t.
Rather, he points to what he calls “lobbyist-led reform”.
“Too often ministers for health are persuaded by someone who’s a good lobbyist to go and implement something without any real evaluation, and I think that is a major barrier to evidence-based reform,” he says.
“Every budget, every election, I see all these promises and I think, ‘Is this really going to make any difference?’ It might, but we just don’t have any evidence.
“I think we need to say we haven’t done a good job in the sector at reducing suicide. And there are people who are going to be professionally threatened [by that], but we’re not here to benefit them.”
Evidence. It’s a contentious word in the multi-million-dollar mental health industry, marred by internal politics and competing interests.
Professor Goldney likens it to “attacking motherhood” — everyone within the sector agrees that funding prevention projects is the right thing to do.
But when it comes to questioning their effectiveness? Less so.
“People are pussyfooting around, trying to make out that really it’s all very simple and something that can be helped by a bit of a kiss and a cuddle,” he remarks.
“I think people have to ask these hard questions — you’re promoting yourself as a suicide prevention organisation, but do you have the evidence to show that that’s what you do? And they don’t.
Article originally published by ABC News on the 8th July 2020 to read the full article click here