Search

Mental health research, policy, and service provision over the last 50 years have constructed families and their connections with mental illness in various and contradictory ways. Three distinct but intersecting perspectives derive from the clinical mental illness literature, the family advocacy movement, and mental health policy. Within the clinical literature, the perspective of families is largely one of blame and pathology. By contrast, the family advocacy movement has generated the perspective of the burdened family, whereas mental health policy has created the perspective of the obligated caregiver. The result is an ambiguous understanding of the role of the family in both contributing and responding to mental illness. Implications for policy and practice include the need for a commitment to the principles of partnership with families, a recognition of diversity within families, recognising the difference between carer and family positions, and a need for policy to reflect the position of family as both intimately concerned, but not necessarily responsible, for patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Problematic substance use is a significant concern for Aboriginal communities across Australia. Most approaches to intervention are individualised, locating the problem and the solution in the substance user. When problematic use is common within a family and community, individual treatment is likely to be ineffective. A literature review of family-focussed and culturally specific drug and alcohol interventions was conducted to inform the development of family-focussed interventions in the community setting. The review supports the development of family-focussed interventions, suggesting this approach will be culturally appropriate and effective for Aboriginal communities. The potential role of social work in working with Aboriginal communities on problematic substance use, and likely barriers for the profession, are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Michael White, the Australian narrative practitioner, died in April this year. Given White trained in social work and has had a large impact on many social workers, it is timely to investigate the opaque relationships linking White and his work with his discipline-of-origin. The present examination proceeds in three steps. First, a schematic outline of White's intellectual influences and achievements is set out; second, the alignments, as well as tensions, between White's work and his discipline-of-origin are considered; and, third, it is argued that White was informed by, and went on to produce a body of work that further informed, the contesting spirit that is the wellspring of the discipline of social work. This conclusion is reached mindful of the fact that White remained antagonistic to the role played by the professions in general and that he did not identify with the title 'social worker' in particular. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]