Bit of an update as per Tony's request.

This is really UK-only, in fact probably England only, as it concerns the
arbitrary way in which English local authorities try to extract money from
people. I think its different in Wales and Scotland.

The background to this is that if a patient has been sectioned under
"Section 117" (which essentially means an order restraining them against
their will for an indefinite period) the local authority has to pay all the
care costs. If the 117 is removed, then someone has to make a
'contribution', not at all sure how that is decided, who that someone is,
how much etc as I havent gone down that road yet, and ironically I suspect
that even if my father had to pay, the amount of money for his
"contribution" would be extremely low in any event due to his and my mothers
financial situation, or lack of it.

Social services view was, AIUI, that because my father was 'easy to care
for' that this meant that his Section 117 could be rescinded and that if he
got violent again they could just sedate him but 117 wouldnt apply! I said
that as far as I knew 117 couldnt be recinded since the law, AIUI (and of
course I Am Not A Lawyer) , says that you can only be released from a 117 if
you essentially have 'recovered' and are able to go back into 'the
community' and care for yourself.

Unless they have discovered a cure for Az, all this seems unlikely (!), but
they said that being 'easy to look after' was the criteria (damn I should
have recorded the meeting, will do if there is another), I said I'd
challenge any such decision, which seemed to surprise them, first of all
they even said I couldnt challenge it, until I pointed out that I would.

My view is they are trying it on, and are going to go round everyone in this
position, working on the fact that many people will just agree, not knowing
the facts (assuming I know them).

I had previously spoken to the Az society who pointed me at some useful
leaflets, which I was able to use in the meeting, in particular pointing out
that a social worker wasnt competent to release someone from 117, it needed
to be a medical professional and making my point that 117 withdrawal meant
they had recovered,and werent just docile (they didnt agree with this).

Anyway, the outcome was that they were going to do a study of my father to
see if he could be released from the 117....I believe they are operating on
a very different view of what is needed to be released from 117 to the
wording of the law, eg you need to have recovered, and not just be docile,
which seemed to be their view.

Well, I had a call from a psychiatrist today to discuss, and to cut a long
story short, he also mentioned the fact about being released from 117 "if
you have 'recovered' and are able to go back into 'the community' ".
(almost his exact words). I pointed out my father was a long way from this,
and that given he had Az, he would never recover, plus he had had some
recent behaviour changes recently, one of which involved him needing to be
sedated, which definitely proved he wasnt cured and also wasnt docile!

So, the psychiatrist said he was minded not to rescind the 117, and would
speak to his colleagues about it. So, hopefully most of the way there, not a
done deal yet, but hopeful.

Maybe this will be useful to anyone in a similar situation to me, the way
care is paid for is definitely "a postcode lottery", and also seemingly
dependent on how aggressive the patient is when taken into care, those who
arent aggressive have to pay,and those who are aggresive, seemingly dont.
End result, people who are vehement about not going into care and get their
way until they are too docile to resist, have to pay, those in the same
situation but have to go in anyway, probably dont, when at the end of the
day, both groups are the same, its the carers, or lack of, that makes the
difference as to when they are admitted, forcibly or not.

Now comes a rant.....In the UK we seem to be able to pay for the food and
lodgings, of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, plus pay their
legal costs to resist going back even when they have committed violent
crimes (they even gave exile to someone from the taliban a few years back!),
I dont see why someone who paid taxes all his life for just this sort of
eventuality (so he was told) , should have to pay a penny, especialy when
the law says that someone in his position shouldnt have to. Its just a pity
that all those who went through hell and cared for their LO's until they
were docile, have to pay.  The lesson is, put your LO into care when they
are resistant to it so they need to be restrained and sectioned. I suspect
that if people started doing this earlier, all of a sudden 'NICE' would find
that it was economical to prescribe aricept etc at early stages.

I have given the UK Az society a donation to their fund to mount a legal
challenge to the NICE decision, perhaps a better idea would be to use the
money to pay for coaches to dump all the Az sufferers inside their local
hospital. NICE would soon change their minds about the economics if carers
werent soaking up the burden for them.

rant over :-)