Search

The promotion of the self‐managing capacities of people has become a marker of contemporary mental health practice, yet self‐management remains a largely uncontested construct in mental health settings. This discourse analysis based upon the work of Foucault investigates self‐management practices for bipolar disorder and their action upon how a person with bipolar disorder comes to think of who they are and how they should live. Using Foucault's framework for exploring the ethical self and transcripts of interviews with people living with bipolar disorder, this discourse analysis finds that the discursive practices of self‐management for bipolar disorder are prescribing a restricted regime for living based upon the quintessential neo‐liberal subject using practices that are focused upon managing an unreliable and problematic self. The article concludes with the proposition that the problem of bipolar disorder (for which self‐management is an answer) is less about the object itself and more about how we construct the nature of the self. A Māori indigenous ontology is used here as an example of an alternative discursive resource through which people make sense of the self and which allows ways of thinking about self‐management that engage with ambivalence and ambiguity rather than restriction and regulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In crisis situations, the authority of the nurse is legitimised by legal powers and professional knowledge. Crisis stakeholders include those who directly use services and their families, and a wide range of health, social service and justice agencies. Alternative strategies such as therapeutic risk taking from the perspective of socially inclusive recovery policy coexist in a sometimes uneasy relationship with mental health legislation. A critical discourse analysis was undertaken to examine mental health policies and guidelines, and we interviewed service users, families, nurses and the police about experiences of accessing services. For those who attempt to access services early in crisis, as is suggested to lead to a better outcome, provision of services and rights appear to be reversed by an attempt to exclude them through practices that screen them out, rather than prioritising a choice in access. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Within the context of global debates about safety and ethics of supporting women to give birth at home, it is important to analyse documents governing midwifery and obstetric practice and influence decision‐making around place of birth. In Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom, relatively small numbers of women choose to give birth at home despite their midwifery colleges' support. In the United States and Australia, the obstetric colleges do not support homebirth and these countries have lower numbers of women who birth at home, compared with the United Kingdom. There are numerous regulatory and industry challenges for midwives attending homebirths. This paper reports on a Foucauldian analysis of Australian obstetric and midwifery colleges' position statements about homebirth, who have conflicting views, with the view to understanding their arguments and underlying assumptions. The documents highlighted tensions between competing discourses of risk and autonomy and differences in academic argument. Opportunities for strengthening their statements are highlighted. The methodology is applicable for future analysis of similar documents governing practice in other countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]