Justina Pelletier

[penultimatestraw 473]

Justina says she wants to go home. Parents want her home so they can get her the care they think she needs. Her sister confirms it is a loving home. No charges brought for child abuse against the parents. The minor sibling was not removed from the "abusive" home when they took Justina away from the parents.

 

 

But there is no way the hospital screwed this up and is now in CYA mode.

Pretty good summary of the popular media's version of the case. Also there are some docs who support the family.

 

Amazing how you can relay this info concisely, without going off tangent or spewing insults. But nobody has eliminated the possibility that BCH is in the wrong. I guess we'll see when the investigation concludes.

[Sho Nuff 719]

I get that pen MD was for many of you the "sage of fftodayforums", but he has shown that he is nothing but a pro MD bully who doesn't give a ###### about parents rights even when these parents have a world re-known expert risking his reputation in court on their behalf.

 

 

In other words...you made up Bs, and when called on it, you decided to sling more insults. Sweet.

[Googballz 39]

Pretty good summary of the popular media's version of the case. Also there are some docs who support the family.

 

Amazing how you can relay this info concisely, without going off tangent or spewing insults. But nobody has eliminated the possibility that BCH is in the wrong. I guess we'll see when the investigation concludes.

It is a pretty good summary of the family's version as well.

[penultimatestraw 473]

It is a pretty good summary of the family's version as well.

Does this surprise you, considering the BCH docs can't reveal confidential medical info?

[Googballz 39]

Does this surprise you, considering the BCH docs can't reveal confidential medical info?

Why would the family need the BCH to release confidential medical information for us to know how they feel?

 

What surprises me when I consider the BCH docs can't reveal confidential medical info is how you are able to know what her affliction is, and how you know they are abusing the child.

[psychsurvivor 2]

You forgot to smile.

Don't some states have a need for treatment standard too?

Here it is .

 

No, in the United States, since the 1975 US Supreme Court decision http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Connor_v._Donaldson

 

"May the State fence in the harmless mentally ill solely to save its citizens from exposure to those whose ways are different? One might as well ask if the State, to avoid public unease, could incarcerate all who are physically unattractive or socially eccentric. Mere public intolerance or animosity cannot constitutionally justify the deprivation of a person's physical liberty. In short, a State cannot constitutionally confine without more a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by himself or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends."

 

States have been refining that in expansive ways, but "need for treatment" alone is not a valid standard for civil commitment (unlike what happens in the vast majority of European countries). The most some states have been able to pass is "need for treatment to avoid that the individual becomes dangerous" or similar language. But "dangerousness" in one form or another is the basic requirement, which also explains why psychiatrists always speak of the "danger of non treating mental illness" to ask for more powers after mass shootings or brainwash people like OldMaid to convince them of the "danger" of not treating their family members. The fact remains that psychiatry has consistently lost in the US Supreme Court. The most recent significant case involving psychiatry was this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clark_v._Arizona .

 

This higher regard for individual freedom, coming from both liberal and conservative justices, is one of the guarantees that I cherish most from the US.

[psychsurvivor 2]

In other words...you made up Bs, and when called on it, you decided to sling more insults. Sweet.

I have not been called on any BS. On the contrary, Mr old fart pen has been exposed for the intellectual fraud he is .

[psychsurvivor 2]

Why would the family need the BCH to release confidential medical information for us to know how they feel?

 

What surprises me when I consider the BCH docs can't reveal confidential medical info is how you are able to know what her affliction is, and how you know they are abusing the child.

Don't let yourself be fooled by the old fart. The fact is that BCH did leak confidential information to the Boston Globe back in December to make sure their side of the story was heard. Just as somebody at the court or DCF leaked the judge decision with the expectation that "their side" would get vindicated.

 

The problem the BCH/DCF side has is that none of what they have leaked is enough to steal the custody from a child under US laws. Such is the bubble they live in. Calling BCH doctors who kidnap children "Nazis" is not enough to steal somebody's child. Same with the other things that BCH leaked to the Boston Globe in December.

 

In fact, after the ruling was leaked, the parents got more supporters from all sides of the political spectrum, including leftist blogger Charles Pierce and Mike Huckabee -who would not put his 2016 aspirations in the line without having done due diligence.

 

Still, the "old fart" wants us to believe there is "another side" .

[Googballz 39]

Don't let yourself be fooled by the old fart.

Not a chance.

 

He has two stances in this thread:

 

1. We can't question the BCH because they are bound by law to not release any information.

 

2. BCH is correct and everyone else is wrong because of what I know about what information they have released.

[psychsurvivor 2]

Not a chance.

 

He has two stances in this thread:

 

1. We can't question the BCH because they are bound by law to not release any information.

 

2. BCH is correct and everyone else is wrong because of what I know about what information they have released.

He is a complete "nut job", no kidding .

[Sho Nuff 719]

I h

 

 

 

e not been called on any BS. On the contrary, Mr old fart pen has been exposed for the intellectual fraud he is .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, you have been called out.

Where did pen or anyone else claim the BCH docs could do no wrong?

As for intellectual fraud...funny coming from you.

[Sho Nuff 719]

GP and psych really showing their ass...pretty sad.

[drobeski 3,061]

 

Yes, you have been called out.

Where did pen or anyone else claim the BCH docs could do no wrong?

As for intellectual fraud...funny coming from you.

semantics

[Googballz 39]

semantics

[FeelingMN 273]

Here it is .

No, in the United States, since the 1975 US Supreme Court decision http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O'Connor_v._Donaldson

 

States have been refining that in expansive ways, but "need for treatment" alone is not a valid standard for civil commitment (unlike what happens in the vast majority of European countries). The most some states have been able to pass is "need for treatment to avoid that the individual becomes dangerous" or similar language. But "dangerousness" in one form or another is the basic requirement, which also explains why psychiatrists always speak of the "danger of non treating mental illness" to ask for more powers after mass shootings or brainwash people like OldMaid to convince them of the "danger" of not treating their family members. The fact remains that psychiatry has consistently lost in the US Supreme Court. The most recent significant case involving psychiatry was this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clark_v._Arizona .

This higher regard for individual freedom, coming from both liberal and conservative justices, is one of the guarantees that I cherish most from the US.

Got it.

 

I've seen states like Wisconsin referred to as a need for treatment state. But they do establish that a person must be a danger to self and others as evidenced by recent acts/threats.

 

So as long as you're not dangerous, you've really got nothing to worry about. And no need to get so upset when someone mentions it.

 

And if OldMaid was brainwashed by psychiatry causing her to treat her mother a certain way, then the same could be said of you disowning your parents because of anti psychiatry. Or maybe it's just a lack of insight. If someone responds well to treatment, then it is a good thing that they received treatment and it should be their choice....as a free American....to seek such treatment for their loved ones. The fact that you oppose this says more about you than anything else.

 

In short, a State cannot constitutionally confine without more a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by himself or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends. ...

This point has been made repeatedly by others in this thread. Glad to hear the the Supreme Court agrees.

[psychsurvivor 2]

Got it.

I've seen states like Wisconsin referred to as a need for treatment state. But they do establish that a person must be a danger to self and others as evidenced by recent acts/threats.

So as long as you're not dangerous, you've really got nothing to worry about. And no need to get so upset when someone mentions it.

And if OldMaid was brainwashed by psychiatry causing her to treat her mother a certain way, then the same could be said of you disowning your parents because of anti psychiatry. Or maybe it's just a lack of insight. If someone responds well to treatment, then it is a good thing that they received treatment and it should be their choice....as a free American....to seek such treatment for their loved ones. The fact that you oppose this says more about you than anything else.

 

This point has been made repeatedly by others in this thread. Glad to hear the the Supreme Court agrees.

Glad we could have a civil conversation without name calling. Two small points,

 

- Maybe I misunderstood OldMaid but my understanding is the her mother didn't want to take any drugs and she was kind of "forced" into them by her family members. Not sure if there was a court order but OldMaid buys the NAMI koolaid it should be easier to drug people against their will than it is currently now.

 

- With respect to the implications of having a genuine "need for treatment" standard, consider a country like Norway. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19199121: "the overall study generated incidence rate for civil commitment based on "involuntary referrals", "treatment periods" and persons involved were 259, 209 and 186 per 100,000 adults/year, respectively". That's right, about 1 of every 500 Norwegians has been involuntarily committed. Not sure people in this forum who buy the psychiatry koolaid would want to go there .

 

So indeed, I like the US standard better . In fact, I want to improve it: no coercive psychiatric treatment for non criminal defendants AT ALL. In other words: psychiatry "truly" like the specialties that treat diabetes, cancer or AIDS, none of which can be imposed on people against their will even when refusal to be treated results in the death of the individual. And of course, get rid of travesties like the Justina case, in which a psych diagnosis is given higher deference than a biological diagnosis in custody decisions.

[OldMaid 1,838]

Where the fock did I say I wanted it easier to drug people than it already is?

 

I was better off when I had you on ignore. Your reading comprehension is equal to that of a first grader.

[psychsurvivor 2]

Where the fock did I say I wanted it easier to drug people than it already is?

I was better off when I had you on ignore. Your reading comprehension is equal to that of a first grader.

Do you defend AOT? It would seem from what you say. AOT has not yet been tested at the US Supreme Court and it is definitely an assault to the right to refuse psychiatry.

 

You are also on record that your mother refused to be drugged, and that you drugged her against her wishes.

 

So sure, you are the typical NAMI "useful idiot" that I so much despise for being part of the APA propaganda machine.

[OldMaid 1,838]

Do you defend AOT? It would seem from what you say. AOT has not yet been tested at the US Supreme Court and it is definitely an assault to the right to refuse psychiatry.

You are also on record that your mother refused to be drugged, and that you drugged her against her wishes.

So sure, you are the typical NAMI "useful idiot" that I so much despise for being part of the APA propaganda machine.

I think maybe you should look in the mirror...

 

We're talking about schizophrenia here (or at least I am), not depression or OCD. I'm guessing you don't understand what that is. If you did, you wouldn't be making some of the statements that you have. It's not just "odd" behaviors. And many patients with this particular "disorder" will resist treatment. It's part of the problem... but you can't just leave them to their own devices.

 

Whatever... I'm not getting into this with you again. You've been shown that you are clearly ignorant on this subject and also more than a little paranoid as well.

 

Back to the padded room you go.

[NewbieJr 540]

I think maybe you should look in the mirror...

 

We're talking about schizophrenia here (or at least I am), not depression or OCD. I'm guessing you don't understand what that is. If you did, you wouldn't be making some of the statements that you have. It's not just "odd" behaviors. And many patients with this particular "disorder" will resist treatment. It's part of the problem... but you can't just leave them to their own devices.

 

Whatever... I'm not getting into this with you again. You've been shown that you are clearly ignorant on this subject and also more than a little paranoid as well.

 

Back to the padded room you go.

Old Maid, stop wasting your breath on this idiot. He pretends to know about your situation better than you do. That alone should tell you what a dooshbag he is.

 

What we have here is a jerkoff who has mental disorders, was put away for them, and is probably studying up this much about them because of some lawsuit he's in the middle of trying to get some money for nothing. He's also used his 'illness' as an advantage in obtaining permanent disability so he can bilk the government for a free paycheck every week.

[Googballz 39]

Old Maid, stop wasting your breath on this idiot. He pretends to know about your situation better than you do.

This describes Penultimate and the Pelletier situation to a T.

[Sho Nuff 719]

semantics

NT at all considering pen has clearly stated the docs could be wrong.

[OldMaid 1,838]

Old Maid, stop wasting your breath on this idiot. He pretends to know about your situation better than you do. That alone should tell you what a dooshbag he is.

 

What we have here is a jerkoff who has mental disorders, was put away for them, and is probably studying up this much about them because of some lawsuit he's in the middle of trying to get some money for nothing. He's also used his 'illness' as an advantage in obtaining permanent disability so he can bilk the government for a free paycheck every week.

I know... I know... Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.

 

I should have left him on ignore.

[NewbieJr 540]

I know... I know... Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.

 

I should have left him on ignore.

We all have members here who we think are a little nuts. This guy is actually certifiable. We KNOW he's nuts.

[KSB2424 3,083]

So indeed, I like the US standard better . In fact, I want to improve it: no coercive psychiatric treatment for non criminal defendants AT ALL. In other words: psychiatry "truly" like the specialties that treat diabetes, cancer or AIDS, none of which can be imposed on people against their will even when refusal to be treated results in the death of the individual. And of course, get rid of travesties like the Justina case, in which a psych diagnosis is given higher deference than a biological diagnosis in custody decisions.

 

Sounds reasonable and sane to me.

[penultimatestraw 473]

This describes Penultimate and the Pelletier situation to a T.

Yes, I understand it far better than you do. Funny how direct experience treating patients with mental illness, including somatoform and factitious disorders, and working in several hospitals allows me to understand how they function behind the scenes.

 

I'll be deferential to your opinions concerning topics like trolling and, uh, well, umm, trolling.

[OldMaid 1,838]

Sounds reasonable and sane to me.

So, you think it's perfectly reasonable and sane to let someone who is suffering from psychotic episodes, that reuses treatment, to wander the streets at will?

 

[penultimatestraw 473]

 

Sounds reasonable and sane to me.

Until you consider the "biological diagnosis" was never made definitively in this case.

 

Or that a malfunctioning mind often stands in the way of treating "biological diagnoses". How can one be expected to realize the consequences of refusing treatment when they lack decisional capacity?

[penultimatestraw 473]

 

NT at all considering pen has clearly stated the docs could be wrong.

 

Well that's one way of interpreting it. Or one of my other personalities could have typed those words repeatedly.

[Googballz 39]

Yes, I understand it far better than you do. Funny how direct experience treating patients with mental illness, including somatoform and factitious disorders, and working in several hospitals allows me to understand how they function behind the scenes.

 

I'll be deferential to your opinions concerning topics like trolling and, uh, well, umm, trolling.

I never questioned your credentials, nor did I say you don't have more experience with mental illness than I do.

 

I just find it curious you attack anyone who questions anything about the BCH by saying nobody can do so because they don't have the facts due to BCH being unable to release any info by law. And then you turn around and claim to know what is going on because you have an MD after your name.

 

You can't have it both ways, Doc.

[FeelingMN 273]

Glad we could have a civil conversation without name calling. Two small points,

- Maybe I misunderstood OldMaid but my understanding is the her mother didn't want to take any drugs and she was kind of "forced" into them by her family members. Not sure if there was a court order but OldMaid buys the NAMI koolaid it should be easier to drug people against their will than it is currently now.

- With respect to the implications of having a genuine "need for treatment" standard, consider a country like Norway. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19199121: "the overall study generated incidence rate for civil commitment based on "involuntary referrals", "treatment periods" and persons involved were 259, 209 and 186 per 100,000 adults/year, respectively". That's right, about 1 of every 500 Norwegians has been involuntarily committed. Not sure people in this forum who buy the psychiatry koolaid would want to go there .

So indeed, I like the US standard better . In fact, I want to improve it: no coercive psychiatric treatment for non criminal defendants AT ALL. In other words: psychiatry "truly" like the specialties that treat diabetes, cancer or AIDS, none of which can be imposed on people against their will even when refusal to be treated results in the death of the individual. And of course, get rid of travesties like the Justina case, in which a psych diagnosis is given higher deference than a biological diagnosis in custody decisions.

I found a fact that we can absolutely agree on: the US is not Finland.

 

Finland has a genuine need for treatment standard. The US does not. Are we in danger of "going there"?

 

If OldMaid's mom doesn't receive treatment....can't be committed involuntarily....there remains two options to her and her family: grin and bear it or kick the mother out of the home. Neither are satisfactory.....especially in light of the fact that she responded well to treatment.

 

And if we qualify involuntary commitment on the basis of being dangerous, why should we wait until someone has done something potentially dangerous before committing them? Again, you believe in absolute free will, and so if you don't want to be committed, don't pose as a danger by acting or making threats as such.

[psychsurvivor 2]

I think maybe you should look in the mirror...

We're talking about schizophrenia here (or at least I am), not depression or OCD. I'm guessing you don't understand what that is. If you did, you wouldn't be making some of the statements that you have. It's not just "odd" behaviors. And many patients with this particular "disorder" will resist treatment. It's part of the problem... but you can't just leave them to their own devices.

Whatever... I'm not getting into this with you again. You've been shown that you are clearly ignorant on this subject and also more than a little paranoid as well.

Back to the padded room you go.

Great insight into how the mind of the "useful idiot" works. Even when studies show that for a significant percentage of people that were given a label of "schizophrenia" being on psychotropic drugs prevents them from long term recovery and even when the director of the National Institute of Mental Health says that,

 

It appears that what we currently call “schizophrenia” may comprise disorders with quite different trajectories. For some people, remaining on medication long-term might impede a full return to wellness. For others, discontinuing medication can be disastrous.

 

The useful idiot still claims that “schizophrenia” is a clear cut "disease" for which the only solution is neuroleptics for life, by force if necessary (because AOT is indeed a form of coercive psychiatry).

 

Please, watch "Life of Brian". You'll find that the guy who scripted the most zealous followers of Brian into the movie got his inspiration from people like you .

[psychsurvivor 2]

Old Maid, stop wasting your breath on this idiot. He pretends to know about your situation better than you do. That alone should tell you what a dooshbag he is.

 

What we have here is a jerkoff who has mental disorders, was put away for them, and is probably studying up this much about them because of some lawsuit he's in the middle of trying to get some money for nothing. He's also used his 'illness' as an advantage in obtaining permanent disability so he can bilk the government for a free paycheck every week.

So now I am trying to sue people for money or trying to become "officially disabled". Really? The last thing a guy who doesn't believe in psychiatric labels would do is to have the US government him classified as disabled by a psychiatric label for life!

 

Honestly, you are pathetic.

 

As I said several times, for all you know, I could even be a robot that passes the Turing test with flying colors .

[psychsurvivor 2]

And if we qualify involuntary commitment on the basis of being dangerous, why should we wait until someone has done something potentially dangerous before committing them? Again, you believe in absolute free will, and so if you don't want to be committed, don't pose as a danger by acting or making threats as such.

 

For the very same reason that we wait until somebody commits a crime or there is probable cause that a crime has been committed before we preemptively lock up all black males who are gang members in inner cities even though we know that "being a black male in an inner city and a gang member" is a better predictor of future violent or criminal behavior than any DSM label alone, including "schizophrenia" which is nothing but a placeholder for behavioral patterns arrogant MD APA members do not understand .

 

The "presumption of innocence" is one of the basis of civil liberties. We already know how regimes that believe in preemptive lock up of "potentially dangerous people" look like: China, Cuba or the former USSR. I don't think you want to go to a place in which a DSM label makes you less human or deserving of civil liberties, especially since according to the NIMH,

 

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-numbers-count-mental-disorders-in-america/index.shtml

 

"An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older — about one in four adults — suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year.1 "

 

The citation names a study that was done with DSM-IV criteria. Since DSM-5 is DSM-IV on steroids, you can be sure that probably that a similar study would provide a higher percentage of the population who would see their rights diminished. Take what has been one of Allen Frances main criticism of DSM-5. In the DSM-IV regime, being sad up to 6 months after the death of a loved one was not considered "clinical depression". With DSM-5, anybody who is extremely sad after 2 weeks of the death of a loved one meets the criteria for "clinical depression". And make no mistake, "clinical depression" is one of the preferred labels used to lock up people for suicide prevention .

[OldMaid 1,838]

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by psychsurvivor. View it anyway?

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by psychsurvivor. View it anyway?

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by psychsurvivor. View it anyway?

[drobeski 3,061]

Solid, the girls will be impressed.

[OldMaid 1,838]

Solid, the girls will be impressed.

Dude, the guy is insuiting that I forced treatment on my schizophrenic mother, because her "odd" behavior "shamed me in public", so I locked her up as a way to "control" her.

 

Now, I know we routinely tease each other about sh!t from time to time, and maybe sometimes cross a few lines... but this is WAY over IMO.

 

Granted, there is room for improvement in psychiatric care. I have no doubt that there are cases of the system being abused, but to say that mental illnesses don't exist, and all treatment is bogus... Or that we should let people with psychosis roam the street if they refuse treatment-there's just no use trying to defend yourself from that kind of thinking.

 

Surely, you can understand that.

[psychsurvivor 2]

Dude, the guy is insuiting that I forced treatment on my schizophrenic mother, because her "odd" behavior "shamed me in public", so I locked her up as a way to "control" her.

Now, I know we routinely tease each other about sh!t from time to time, and maybe sometimes cross a few lines... but this is WAY over IMO.

Granted, there is room for improvement in psychiatric care. I have no doubt that there are cases of the system being abused, but to say that mental illnesses don't exist, and all treatment is bogus... Or that we should let people with psychosis roam the street if they refuse treatment-there's just no use trying to defend yourself from that kind of thinking.

Surely, you can understand that.

People like you got John Nash committed. It took him 20 years to go from whatever extreme mental state he had to full recovery, but he did, eventually, in time to win a Nobel Prize in economics. Here is his story told from an objective point of view,

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chXIfhJ36Iw

 

He resented every coercive form of so called "treatment" that was done to him. His eventual recovery was possible because his ex-wife accepted him for who he was and did not try to change him anymore.

 

Drugging a person with a neuroleptic shuts that person's brain, making them more docile, but in now way fixes a "chemical imbalance" or lets them be themselves.

[FeelingMN 273]

For the very same reason that we wait until somebody commits a crime or there is probable cause that a crime has been committed before we preemptively lock up all black males who are gang members in inner cities even though we know that "being a black male in an inner city and a gang member" is a better predictor of future violent or criminal behavior than any DSM label alone, including "schizophrenia" which is nothing but a placeholder for behavioral patterns arrogant MD APA members do not understand .

The "presumption of innocence" is one of the basis of civil liberties. We already know how regimes that believe in preemptive lock up of "potentially dangerous people" look like: China, Cuba or the former USSR.

Ok. So our system denies civil liberties because people are committed when they pose a danger to themselves or others. Not actually committing a crime. And this puts us on even ground with China, Cuba, USSR. Ok....but then you've also said:

 

You have to understand this. I was a victim of a regime like the pre-1975 that existed in the US. In most of Europe "need for treatment" is still a valid ground to lock up people against their will. My American citizenship and our higher respect for individual freedom is what allows me to live without worries that I could ever be committed again. My commitment would not have happened under our standards..

So our system also has a higher respect for individual freedom, at least compared to Europe, and keeps people, such as yourself, from worrying about ever being committed as long as they never pose a danger to themselves or others. But we're locking people up like Cuba and China.....who must also have a higher respect for individual freedom, at least compared to Europe.....even though they lock up people preemptively....like we do.

 

 

 

What do you mean when you refer to schizophrenia as a placeholder for behavioral patterns?

[psychsurvivor 2]

Ok. So our system denies civil liberties because people are committed when they pose a danger to themselves or others. Not actually committing a crime. And this puts us on even ground with China, Cuba, USSR. Ok....but then you've also said:

 

So our system also has a higher respect for individual freedom, at least compared to Europe, and keeps people, such as yourself, from worrying about ever being committed as long as they never pose a danger to themselves or others. But we're locking people up like Cuba and China.....who must also have a higher respect for individual freedom, at least compared to Europe.....even though they lock up people preemptively....like we do.

What do you mean when you refer to schizophrenia as a placeholder for behavioral patterns?

With respect to the fact that civil commitment, even in the US, still violates civil liberties (even though I have already conceded that the US has higher protections than Europe) one has to talk about the standard used to commit people and the legal rights (or lack thereof) during the commitment process. The standard is "clear and convincing evidence" per this other US Supreme Court decision http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addington_v._Texas (1979). The problem is that people who are labeled with one of the DSM labels have less rights than people who are not labelled:

 

- If the APA nut jobs do not consider your behavior to be worth of a DSM label, then you cannot be arrested unless there is probable cause that a crime has been committed. That crime could include making credible threats of violence to other people (called "criminal threats" or "terrorist threats" depending on the state/federal). To be locked up for a longer time, you need to be convicted under the standard "beyond reasonable doubt" and the length of your incarceration is clearly determined by statute. In addition, as a criminal defendant, you enjoy several procedural and statutory protections, such as that you have a right to remain silent and that cannot be used against you.

 

- If the APA nut jobs DO consider your behavior to be worth of a DSM label, then there is a different regime. You can be detained for a short term just under the suspicion that some psychiatrist or peace office believes that you might become dangerous in the future. Then you can be locked up indefinitely if a mock court (since "mental health courts" are as rubber stampers as the FISA court is with NSA requests) determines under the lower standard "clear and convincing evidence" that you will be dangerous if left in freedom. During this process you don't have the same procedural and statutory protections as a criminal defendant, including, the right to remain silent. Anything you do, or you don't do, is interpreted as further sign of "mental illness" or "dangerousness" just because some psychiatrist says so.

 

Now, I am not using the word "incarceration" lightly. That comes directly from the O'Connor v Donaldson Supreme Court decision referring to civil commitment.

 

What I mean that schizophrenia is a placeholder for behaviors that the APA people do not understand, I mean that. Schizophrenia has not been shown to be a biological disease in the same way CJD or Alzheimer's have. If I give you the brains of two dead people, one from somebody that some quack determined to have "schizophrenia" and the other from someone that the same quack determined that it didn't have schizophrenia, you cannot tell through the biological test of your choice which one is the brain from the schizophrenic person. The label schizophrenia is assigned from patterns of behavior alone not from biology.

 

To summarize, I give you that we are much better off in the US than in Europe (enough so that people like me do not have much to worry about) but we have still ways to go until a DSM label has no bearing in the decision to curtail the individual freedom of people, including children like Justina Pelletier.