3 ms·

>But if you read the article, you'll notice that approval for this new "treatment" came from the deputy mayor for culture with no input from the medical communi

>But if you read the article, you'll notice that approval for this new "treatment" came from the deputy mayor for culture with no input from the medical community. The politician approved their involvement with a six month trial run by several hospitals. The politician is involved because they are in charge of the museums offering tickets. >Even worse, this new law trivializes the challenges of living with mental illness and undermines the work of mental health professional, who have spent decades educating the public that treating depression goes far beyond "getting yourself out there" or "taking a break." Not really a law, and it would be your health professional that suggests the program in addition to other treatment, and then consults you about it before and after the trip. You can be cynical about this news story, which is likely politicians saying "we're helping you see?" But the actual program seems to have more behind it than your post suggests.

danielfoster 4y ago
Thanks for adding in these details. I definitely still feel cynical even with this information. It's not clear where the idea for this program originated. I highly doubt local hospitals approached the city government and said, "Oh hey, we would really like to start prescribing museum visit. Can you help with this?" Looking at the big picture it is good to see the government try to improve quality of life. Things like reduced traffic, increased greenspace, and access to activities can play a role in treating / reducing illness. The government still should not be promoting museum visits as an effective treatment component for mental illness. I honestly think museums should be free / low-cost for everyone in any case.
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  >It's not clear where the idea for this program originated. I'm not sure, all I know is what was in the article. It mentions it was based off a similar program somewhere in Canada. Wherever it originated, it still would have had to pass the hospital review, but both groups are liable to do something for PR. And while there may be better things the government could do, they also require far more work and money than this program that involves giving out tickets to museums. I also find state mrun museums charging to be strange, but that's a separate matter.

danielfoster 4y ago

Thanks for adding in these details. I definitely still feel cynical even with this information. It's not clear where the idea for this program originated. I highly doubt local hospitals approached the city government and said, "Oh hey, we would really like to start prescribing museum visit. Can you help with this?" Looking at the big picture it is good to see the government try to improve quality of life. Things like reduced traffic, increased greenspace, and access to activities can play a role in treating / reducing illness. The government still should not be promoting museum visits as an effective treatment component for mental illness. I honestly think museums should be free / low-cost for everyone in any case.

boomboomsubban 4y ago
>It's not clear where the idea for this program originated. I'm not sure, all I know is what was in the article. It mentions it was based off a similar program somewhere in Canada. Wherever it originated, it still would have had to pass the hospital review, but both groups are liable to do something for PR. And while there may be better things the government could do, they also require far more work and money than this program that involves giving out tickets to museums. I also find state mrun museums charging to be strange, but that's a separate matter.