To be shocked by Jeremy Kyle

I have said I watched one , a paternity test result and it upset me , the poor child

Aaah not necessarily Anniebach what if the “child” was relieved to find that some @rs*h*le wasn’t their father after all.

On national tv gilly ?

The 'child' agreed to be on the show too Annie. Not that I think its a good thing to do.

The child was about 2, wasn’t on the programme .

Sodapop, what age do you think a child should be to agree to this humiliation? 5, 7, 9, 11 ?

Children cannot give consent in any meaningful sense in situations like this - I think the same about programmes like Supernanny , Benefit programmes and some of those programmes about schools. What is it with our society that we relish programmes that feed on human misery, inadequacies and humiliations in the name of entertainment? It’s not as though they actually inform us of anything

I agree 100% Maryeliza,

Do they even have children on this program ?

I’m surprised that Graham ( the Counsellor) works on such a programme. Counsellors are ethically in the wrong to work exploitativly.

Probably better than him not being there at all though ohmother. Who knows some people may end up getting the real help they need (and wouldn’t have gotten otherwise) via the program . Not saying that makes it all okay mind you but trying to get help with MH issues, alcohol, drugs on the NHS is damned near impossible. I watched “Ambulance” the other night and on average people wait 13 weeks for help after a suicide attempt ! 13 weeks! Unbelievable . Another poor guy (alcoholic) desperately wanted to stop drinking but couldn’t get on a detox program for months. Maybe programs such as this can get some people the help they need quicker.

The adults have children and so children are impacted by their parents being on this programme. Re the role of Graham my guess is that the regulators probably say that the programme can only go ahead if there is this support. The problem gilly with saying that at least they get some help is that we have no way of knowing if in the long run greater harm is suffered as a result of being on the programme. Also I really believe that programmes like this help to feed prejudices about the types of people who appear on them ( see some of the language used on this thread for example) and so make the lives of people in general harder.

gilly do those on this programme with a drug or alcohol addiction get into a NHS rehab centre faster or is their treatment paid for by the tv company ? My guess is they may be advised to enter a rehab , a GP would say the same

Sometimes they are taken off for rehab there and then, and sometimes they come on another show to tell how their life has changed, so that's something positive I suppose.

I agree MissA that some individuals may benefit ( although I do wonder what the overall stats are) but that in and of itself is not a justification for the programme

I agree, but while people watch, and there is an endless supply of disordered people to appear, I don't think it will stop.

It won’t stop until people stop their need to watch it.

I was off work sick, recovering from an operation, and had never seen Jeremy Kyle before. I didn't really know anything about it, but watched an episode. One of the participants was (were?) a young couple and the man had contacted the programme for help for his girlfriend. I think she had anorexia or bulimia - something like that.

Jeremy Kyle was SO kind to her, was SO empathetic and SO supportive. I thought "oh this is a nice show, I'll watch again tomorrow"

The following day's programme was like the gates of hell had been opened. It was full-on swearing, shouting, punches being thrown, crude behaviour - the full kit and caboodle. I was so taken aback, as I'd expected a repeat of the previous day's kindness.

I've only ever watched one episode since then, and that was for work, where a father asked me if I watched Jeremy Kyle. I said no, I am at work when it's on, and he told me to watch the episode on a particular day, because he and his ex partner, together with another of his ex partner's ex partners were on, and I would be able to see what led to his family being in the position they were in.

He actually came across very well on the programme, unlike the child's mother, but it provided insight as to why their child was behaving the way they were.

You are not alone Dragonfly, I have learnt to tolerate our different attitudes to this programme, ?

Sometimes they are taken off for rehab there and then, and sometimes they come on another show to tell how their life has changed, so that's something positive I suppose

which is the point I was trying to make up thread MissA .

Also going back to Ambulance that I watched the other night . Is showing a desperate young alcoholic and a suicidal man on camera , hearing them pouring their heart out to an ambulance crew on national TV and then still not getting the help they desperately needed really any better ?

I agree gilly not any better. I notice on some of these A&E type programmes that I occasionally watch tbat some patients faces are blurred out because they all have to give consent for their part to be transmitted - I would guess tbat blurring is on option and the other must be that nothing must be transmitted at all. I am firmly of the view that often in these circumstances consent is not really given in a really informed way. The two examples,you cite gilly really beg the question as to if they were really able to give meaningful consent in those circumstances. Once a TV programme is aired, clips can appear on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and are there for ever no matter how the participant may have moved on. I wonder how and when they get consent? At the time? Visit them later? I bet they never get to see the final cut before consent is taken.

Regarding ambulance type programmes, I think they have a place in showing people what actually happens when someone's mental health is in crisis.
(Basically taken into hospital for a few hours and then discharged)
I watched one a couple of weeks ago: a young woman who had multiple problems, and how she took up so much time, but wasn't getting any help.
A man who had self harmed so badly he had almost severed his own arm - again, taken into hospital and discharged.
I wouldn't know any of this if I didn't watch, and its not because I'm a ghoul, or because I get enjoyment from watching people suffering.
I'm interested in peoples' lives. Ordinary people, not ruddy celebrities.

There is no way that the poor people in the 2 examples I have given ( aired last week) were in any fit state to give full consent to this kind of exploitation maryeliza both of which were heartbreakingly sad . Both were shown fully with no pixelation or blurring.

I find it heartbreakingly exploitative and dehumanising that people are used like this - and many of them are being used. I know we can learn from these programmes but it should never be at the expense of individuals in these situations . Human beings should never be treated merely as a means to an end but as ends in themselves. That’s the fundamental underpinning principle of humanity and one more honoured in the breach than the observance sadly.

Surely the faces in that situation should always be blurred to protect privacy.
Whatever the problem or injury, no-one should be expected to decide during their medical emergency whether they are okay with being on national TV.

I would imagine all hell would let loose if someone was shown on the programme without consent.