Controversial pilot scheme to be tested by health bosses in Hampshire (From Daily Echo)
When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
Controversial pilot scheme to be tested by health bosses in Hampshire
12:20pm Monday 8th June 2009 in
-
- Exclusive By Peter Law » Feature Writer
HEROIN addicts in Hampshire will help decide how public cash is spent on treating their addiction, the Daily Echo can reveal.
In the first trial of its kind in the UK, addicts will have some control over how hundreds of pounds of taxpayers’ money is spent on them each week.
An anti-tax campaign group last night warned there must be tight controls on how the money is spent.
And there have also been fears that some victims of crime may find the scheme “outrageous”.
Hampshire health bosses insisted the addicts would not have direct access to the cash and would not be able to prescribe themselves the heroin replacement methadone.
Project co-ordinator Lorraine Lambert said users were being encouraged to look at non-traditional forms of treatment to help them get clean.
Cash could be spent on life coaches, parenting courses, drama or art classes and complimentary therapies such as acupuncture.
“We already have one person who wants to pursue further education to help them develop new life She added: “It’s highly unlikely a holiday or camping trip to the New Forest could be considered part of their treatment. If that is what they want, then they’ll have to pay for it themselves.”
Mrs Lambert claimed tailoring care to suit an individual’s preferences could actually save taxpayers’ money in the long run.
“The most expensive form of treatment is when it does not work and they have to keep coming back. Evidence suggest that the more people have ownership of their treatment, the higher the rate of success.”
Hampshire Partnership Trust service manager Sandra Jerrim said the service would not be open to abuse as the cash would be handled by a broker or care worker – and not the addict.
The £120,000 project, revealed at the start of National Tackling Drugs Week, is one of seven different National Treatment Agency (NTA) funded pilots.
A spokesman for Victim Support said some people affected by drug-related crime would find it morally wrong.
He added: “Some would say this new scheme is absolutely outrageous and drug-users should be locked up. Others would say at least something is being done.”
The idea was cautiously welcomed by public spending watchdog, the Taxpayers’ Alliance Spokesman Matthew Sinclair said: “The concept of personal budgets we would support, even in cases of heroin addiction, as it gives people a certain sense of control over their treatments. There must not be any risk of taxpayers’ money subsiding addiction.”
Comments(16)
Max Lulz
says...
1:17pm Mon 8 Jun 09
beaudog
says...
2:01pm Mon 8 Jun 09
jammyswine
says...
2:43pm Mon 8 Jun 09
beaudog wrote:I totally agree with the sentiment, however, surely those who have had the will power and determination to get clean are the best ones to take heed from; not those who haven't?
I think people are much more likely to be committed to programmes they have had a say in choosing. I wish the project success.
butthurt hockeyd
says...
3:06pm Mon 8 Jun 09
jammyswine wrote:But what worked for one addict, might not work for another. The point - if you read the story - is that each individual addict will get a tailored program, which he has a say in the design of. Asking reformed addicts what worked for them won't be as effective, as it would, by definition, be a compromised "one size fits all" solution
beaudog wrote:I totally agree with the sentiment, however, surely those who have had the will power and determination to get clean are the best ones to take heed from; not those who haven't?
I think people are much more likely to be committed to programmes they have had a say in choosing. I wish the project success.
jammyswine
says...
4:12pm Mon 8 Jun 09
butthurt hockeyd
says...
4:32pm Mon 8 Jun 09
jammyswine wrote:LOL WUT? Srsly, guy, you're clutching.
However, how can you measure that what someone says will work for them is accurate or realistic? The fact it hasn't in the past is not a good pointer to the future!
Reality-man
says...
6:03pm Mon 8 Jun 09
StEmmosButttHurt
says...
6:22pm Mon 8 Jun 09
Reality-man wrote:Another luser who didn't bother reading the article
Let the lunatics run the asylum..... great idea!
jammyswine
says...
7:08pm Mon 8 Jun 09
4:32pm Mon 8 Jun 09
jammyswine wrote:
However, how can you measure that what someone says will work for them is accurate or realistic? The fact it hasn't in the past is not a good pointer to the future!
LOL WUT? Srsly, guy, you're clutching.
----
Why? My opinion is that those who are still addicted are not as good an example or source of information as those who have got clean! Not clutching at all.
StEmmosButttHurt
says...
7:32pm Mon 8 Jun 09
jammyswine wrote:By clutching, I mean you're desperately trying to avoid considering alternatives to your idea. What you've just posted there is just a broad, vague statement. You're basically saying that an addict has got absolutely no idea what might help him kick. Not necessarily true. Suppose I'm an addict, and I know that part of my problem is, I don't have any job prospects, so I use? Am I not in a position to say "if I had a college diploma I'd be less likely to use"?
utthurt hockeyd, an hero says...
4:32pm Mon 8 Jun 09
jammyswine wrote:
However, how can you measure that what someone says will work for them is accurate or realistic? The fact it hasn't in the past is not a good pointer to the future!
LOL WUT? Srsly, guy, you're clutching.
----
Why? My opinion is that those who are still addicted are not as good an example or source of information as those who have got clean! Not clutching at all.
Condor Man
says...
7:47pm Mon 8 Jun 09
jammyswine
says...
7:54pm Mon 8 Jun 09
StEmmosButttHurt wrote:No, I said MORE likely. If we as a community had more money for this then yes. Unfortunately we don't so we have to go by what gets results. In MY opinion, surely what has been proven to work is better? Better than a potentially expensive shot in the dark which may (i hope) or may not work.
jammyswine wrote:By clutching, I mean you're desperately trying to avoid considering alternatives to your idea. What you've just posted there is just a broad, vague statement. You're basically saying that an addict has got absolutely no idea what might help him kick. Not necessarily true. Suppose I'm an addict, and I know that part of my problem is, I don't have any job prospects, so I use? Am I not in a position to say "if I had a college diploma I'd be less likely to use"?
utthurt hockeyd, an hero says...
4:32pm Mon 8 Jun 09
jammyswine wrote:
However, how can you measure that what someone says will work for them is accurate or realistic? The fact it hasn't in the past is not a good pointer to the future!
LOL WUT? Srsly, guy, you're clutching.
----
Why? My opinion is that those who are still addicted are not as good an example or source of information as those who have got clean! Not clutching at all.
StEmmosButttHurt
says...
8:02pm Mon 8 Jun 09
jammyswine wrote:Fair comment I s'pose. On the other hand, *has* what's been done so far been proven to work? Is there a case for trying this new approach? I like to think so
StEmmosButttHurt wrote:No, I said MORE likely. If we as a community had more money for this then yes. Unfortunately we don't so we have to go by what gets results. In MY opinion, surely what has been proven to work is better? Better than a potentially expensive shot in the dark which may (i hope) or may not work.
jammyswine wrote:By clutching, I mean you're desperately trying to avoid considering alternatives to your idea. What you've just posted there is just a broad, vague statement. You're basically saying that an addict has got absolutely no idea what might help him kick. Not necessarily true. Suppose I'm an addict, and I know that part of my problem is, I don't have any job prospects, so I use? Am I not in a position to say "if I had a college diploma I'd be less likely to use"?
utthurt hockeyd, an hero says...
4:32pm Mon 8 Jun 09
jammyswine wrote:
However, how can you measure that what someone says will work for them is accurate or realistic? The fact it hasn't in the past is not a good pointer to the future!
LOL WUT? Srsly, guy, you're clutching.
----
Why? My opinion is that those who are still addicted are not as good an example or source of information as those who have got clean! Not clutching at all.
jammyswine
says...
9:02pm Mon 8 Jun 09
Joe Taxpayer
says...
8:10am Tue 9 Jun 09
More News stories
- Chris Huhne resigns but insists: "I'm innocent"
- Charlie is a big bundle of joy
- Snake owner thrust python at firefighter
- Redknapp jury told to keep their eye on the ball
- Primary teacher is charged with rape
- Free Titanic museum tickets for city residents
- Liverpool to launch turnaround cruises within months, leader claims
- Councillor quits days before disqualification
- Win tickets to see Le Tiss on tour
- Inquest opened into body on the beach
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
jammyswine says...
12:40pm Mon 8 Jun 09