Hacker News Reader

>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.

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.

>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.

For anxiety “getting yourself out there” can literally be the entire issue in the case of agoraphobia, and the reason you see a doctor.

I don’t see this law as trivializing the treatment of anxiety, I’ve seen it be treated across multiple patients over a course of a quarter century and I would say probably “get yourself out there” was the most common treatment option used across many visits because being housebound tends to make the anxiety issues people are worried about enough to go to the doctor about worse.

I’ve also generally seen practices like children and dependant adults with autism (who usually have comorbid anxiety) getting guided through all manner of public places with social workers and guided to do various tasks and a huge objective of such efforts is to soothe any anxiety issues in such exchanges. I’ve seen quite a lot of this actually at significant public expense.

In any case if you read between the lines this story essentially means people with anxiety can go to the museum for free and that’s probably a positive development since we want to remove any potential barriers to the anxious getting out of the house (poverty is another anxiety comorbidity).

> should not be legislated without consulting medical professionals

I don't understand what you are on about. This is an option. Nobody forces people to participate. Nobody forces the medical professionals to prescribe it. Nobody even forces the medical professionals to consider it in any case.

> If you're feeling depressed enough to see a doctor, a free museum visit is unlikely to do anything for you.

Yes. The first sentence on the page: "Brussels tests cultural visits to treat anxiety". So we are talking about anxiety here and not depression. The second sentence on the linked page: "Psychiatrists in the city can now prescribe free visits to cultural venues to complement other treatments" So it is, even if prescribed, recommended in addition to other treatments. And again. It is optional.

> This is just a cultural subsidy in disguise.

This comes off as electioneering, which it probably is. It still is not a bad idea.

in Canada they just recommend assisted suicide so a+ for brussels.

https://globalnews.ca/news/9061709/veteran-medical-assisted-...

Boring people to death using existing underutilized equipment, les expensive than dedicated machinery.

Who else might take the time to get the exposure to suggest such a thing? a person whose job it is to do so.. "all arts are a waste of my money" is the pretext? bah!