New Statutory body as an alternative to the NHS for mental health and hidden disability

I recently put my initial full diagnosis report and asked other questions about post-diagnosis support into Chat GPT and it threw up some very interesting things - it would appear that changes to existing legislation are required and these issues are going to become much more critical as time goes on, as more people are diagnosed with autism, given the continued advances in medical science, other mental health issues and hidden disabilities, including later in life - it seems that our political leaders do not want to admit that there is a serious problem here and don’t want to do the right things, unless they are personally impacted, given the worryingly narrow margin in the Commons regarding the “Liverpool Care Pathway” which was defeated by a worryingly narrow margin - the direction of travel is worryingly moving towards the Maid programme in Canada and I remain very concerned about what is happening as I get older given some of the horrific situations that I’ve read about online regarding other autistic adults - I’ve emailed the answers from Chat GPT around to both my MP’s and other autism campaign organisations 

Well done IrishInManchesterUK  and thanks for setting up this thread.

With a bit of shame for riding on your work here albeit with the reason of getting the conversation out there further I set up another post coming out of this  RE: The Triage Trap: Why do we defend the systems that rely on our crisis?  There are historical guides for how to resolve the concerns you justifiably raise and getting these active is all the more important at present it seems.  Where I'm heading myself in this respect and in the parallel thread is this:

Providing hard, factual evidence from within the UK disability movement gives a manifesto to change unassailable authority. A strategy is potentially available backed by historical and recent victories, proving this blueprint is not an academic theory, but a tested political roadmap.

• The Evidence: The Independent Living Movement (ILM) and the creation of Centres for Independent Living (CIL).
• How it worked: In the 1970s, disabled individuals refused to accept the segregated, clinical care systems mandated by the state. Bypassing local authorities entirely, they built their own parallel, peer-led infrastructure to provide direct, self-directed support.
• The Outcome: These user-led hubs proved so phenomenally successful at preventing institutionalisation that governments were ultimately forced to adopt their entire methodology, forming the modern foundation of direct payments and personalized care.

• The Evidence: Ellen Clifford (DPAC) v Department for Work and Pensions.
• How it worked: Activists stopped fighting exhausting individual appeals and instead coordinated a massive judicial review against the state's attempt to cut nearly £5,000 a year from half a million disabled individuals under the Work Capability Assessment (WCA).
• The Outcome: The High Court ruled the government’s actions entirely unlawful, discrediting the state’s economic arguments and forcing a complete halt and re-consultation on the policy. This proved that targeted, systemic legal pressure makes institutional exclusion too legally and financially volatile for the state to sustain.

• The Evidence: The Autism Act 2009.
• How it worked: The National Autistic Society did not politely wait for a generation of civil servants to understand neurodiversity. They co-authored and pushed a specific Private Member's Bill directly onto the legislative floor.
• The Outcome: It became the first ever disease- or condition-specific piece of legislation in the UK. It legally mandated local authorities and NHS bodies to provide specialized services, proving that an organized community can write its own architecture into law rather than waiting for systemic permission.

Myself and others have run thro' some of the "handling objections" and critique of this further on the parallel thread and I think you would add  appreciably would by your input on it too if you are ok to do so.

For now when eventually people are able to believe in a better future based on knowing that "victories can be achieved" in this fashion then maybe this is an antidote to what I wrote earlier:

Phased said:

if a better world for neurodivergent people is actually possible, then the suffering people are currently experiencing is completely unnecessary and cruel.

It is psychologically safer to believe that a system is broken because it has to be.

So I am really interested to see what response you get to your e-mail campaign.  I wonder if this could be part of something wider as antidote to "divide and conquer"...

I often wonder if anyone other than the forum moderators in the NAS ever read any of our posts and if so what they make of this discussion.

Best Wishes

Well done IrishInManchesterUK  and thanks for setting up this thread.

With a bit of shame for riding on your work here albeit with the reason of getting the conversation out there further I set up another post coming out of this  RE: The Triage Trap: Why do we defend the systems that rely on our crisis?  There are historical guides for how to resolve the concerns you justifiably raise and getting these active is all the more important at present it seems.  Where I'm heading myself in this respect and in the parallel thread is this:

Providing hard, factual evidence from within the UK disability movement gives a manifesto to change unassailable authority. A strategy is potentially available backed by historical and recent victories, proving this blueprint is not an academic theory, but a tested political roadmap.

• The Evidence: The Independent Living Movement (ILM) and the creation of Centres for Independent Living (CIL).
• How it worked: In the 1970s, disabled individuals refused to accept the segregated, clinical care systems mandated by the state. Bypassing local authorities entirely, they built their own parallel, peer-led infrastructure to provide direct, self-directed support.
• The Outcome: These user-led hubs proved so phenomenally successful at preventing institutionalisation that governments were ultimately forced to adopt their entire methodology, forming the modern foundation of direct payments and personalized care.

• The Evidence: Ellen Clifford (DPAC) v Department for Work and Pensions.
• How it worked: Activists stopped fighting exhausting individual appeals and instead coordinated a massive judicial review against the state's attempt to cut nearly £5,000 a year from half a million disabled individuals under the Work Capability Assessment (WCA).
• The Outcome: The High Court ruled the government’s actions entirely unlawful, discrediting the state’s economic arguments and forcing a complete halt and re-consultation on the policy. This proved that targeted, systemic legal pressure makes institutional exclusion too legally and financially volatile for the state to sustain.

• The Evidence: The Autism Act 2009.
• How it worked: The National Autistic Society did not politely wait for a generation of civil servants to understand neurodiversity. They co-authored and pushed a specific Private Member's Bill directly onto the legislative floor.
• The Outcome: It became the first ever disease- or condition-specific piece of legislation in the UK. It legally mandated local authorities and NHS bodies to provide specialized services, proving that an organized community can write its own architecture into law rather than waiting for systemic permission.

Myself and others have run thro' some of the "handling objections" and critique of this further on the parallel thread and I think you would add  appreciably would by your input on it too if you are ok to do so.

For now when eventually people are able to believe in a better future based on knowing that "victories can be achieved" in this fashion then maybe this is an antidote to what I wrote earlier:

Phased said:

if a better world for neurodivergent people is actually possible, then the suffering people are currently experiencing is completely unnecessary and cruel.

It is psychologically safer to believe that a system is broken because it has to be.

So I am really interested to see what response you get to your e-mail campaign.  I wonder if this could be part of something wider as antidote to "divide and conquer"...

I often wonder if anyone other than the forum moderators in the NAS ever read any of our posts and if so what they make of this discussion.

Best Wishes