Justina Pelletier

[Googballz 39]

Simply to show that parents do horrible things to their kids to get attention from medical professionals.

 

I don't think anyone disputes that. But there has been no evidence of it in this case.

[penultimatestraw 473]

And you realize that in the ruling the judge stated (I am not making this up),

 

"At trial there was extensive psychiatric and medical testimony. Voluminous psychiatric and medical records were entered in evidence. Based on credible psychiatric and medical evidence this court has found that Justina suffers from a persistent and severe Somatic Symptom Disorder".

 

So now a "judge" is the "decider in chief" when it comes to competing medical diagnoses. This should scare the hell of everybody who cares about constitutional rights.

 

Somatic Symptom Disorder is a DSM-5 diagnosis with the potential of http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allen-frances/mislabeling-medical-illne_b_2265198.html

 

 

Now, I am not doing the googling for you. Research who is Allen Frances and why his opinion matters. Also note that the Huffington Post article is from 2012. The Justina case seems a textbook prediction of the problems with the way DSM-5 defined "Somatic Symptom Disorder".

 

With respect of being open about my hatred towards psychiatry, you'd be as well if you found yourself in a Justina type of situation, something that is not that unusual http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/yale-university-threatens-suspend-student-skinny-article-1.1748884

Meh, judges rule on things with which they have no specific expertise all the time. I think this is one of the reasons for expert witnesses and "voluminous" medical evidence for them to interpret. But before the judge was even involved, several trained physicians concluded the same, based on their combined knowledge of medical/psychiatric diagnoses and the available data, to much of which the public hasn't been exposed.We are only provided sensational journalism which appeals to the emotional horror of taking a child from their parents. Why is that information any more credible, or the underlying medical diagnosis any more evident in the court of public opinion? The only guy with medical training speaking up on behalf of the mitochondrial diagnosis is the doctor who serves to lose the most if that diagnosis is incorrect. By all accounts, she had multiple doctors before her time at BCH - why aren't all of them testifying in support of the original diagnosis?

 

For the umpteenth time, no physician is going to take decisions which ultimately remove parental custody lightly. I know this from personal/professional experience. My initial thoughts before learning more details (see my first post) was something fishy was going on with the parents. It turns out I guessed correctly in the eyes of those with more data than you or I - both physicians and those involved with the legal process of removing custody.

[Googballz 39]

Meh, judges rule on things with which they have no specific expertise all the time. I think this is one of the reasons for expert witnesses and "voluminous" medical evidence for them to interpret. .

Well then, they can't possibly be wrong.

 

I mean, you were able to diagnose the parents as "crazy" and the girl's sister as having all kinds of syndromes and afflictions off of just a quote she made in a news article. I beginning to think the BCH DRs are incompetent since they needed all that evidence before rendering judgement.

 

They could have just sent you a text and you could have diagnosed the whole lot of them.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Well then, they can't possibly be wrong.

 

I mean, you were able to diagnose the parents as "crazy" and the girl's sister as having all kinds of syndromes and afflictions off of just a quote she made in a news article. I beginning to think the BCH DRs are incompetent since they needed all that evidence before rendering judgement.

 

They could have just sent you a text and you could have diagnosed the whole lot of them.

Of course they can be wrong. And they can be right. I provided an opinion, just like yours, except it is shared by those who are making decisions in the case. Maybe they all are wrong, or in some medical/government/judicial conspiracy. Or maybe, just maybe, the parents are abusive after all .

[Googballz 39]

Of course they can be wrong. And they can be right. I provided an opinion, just like yours, except it is shared by those who are making decisions in the case. Maybe they all are wrong, or in some medical/government/judicial conspiracy. Or maybe, just maybe, the parents are abusive after all .

Maybe?

 

You don't seem quite as sure about that as you did earlier. You said the parents were crazy.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Maybe?

 

You don't seem quite as sure about that as you did earlier. You said the parents were crazy.

Amazing that one can hold a strong opinion yet simultaneously admit they may be incorrect? Most people can even admit they are wrong sometimes, like after losing a bet, for example.

[Googballz 39]

Amazing that one can hold a strong opinion yet simultaneously admit they may be incorrect? Most people can even admit they are wrong sometimes, like after losing a bet, for example.

You were unequivocal in your statement the parents were crazy.

 

I have no problem admitting I am wrong when proven so. Don't have a clue what the bet reference is. Did someone make a bet in this thread I missed?

[Sho Nuff 719]

Amazing that one can hold a strong opinion yet simultaneously admit they may be incorrect? Most people can even admit they are wrong sometimes, like after losing a bet, for example.

 

Best to not really reply to GP...just mock him and move on.

He won't admit he could be wrong...he will run little circular arguments trying to beat you with semantics because the rest of what you have said is rock solid.

You have destroyed him over and over in this topic...yet he keeps trying to poke holes in what you have said.

He has zero to go on (as usual)...yet he keeps coming back to try and play games.

Its not worth your time to really try arguing with someone like that who really has zero clue or zero interest in true debate.

[Sho Nuff 719]

BTW...link to Pen being unequivocal in thinking the parents were crazy...here is his statement on that...

 

This makes no sense. Mitochondrial disorders are diagnosed by gene testing on blood or tissue (usually muscle) specimens, which surely had been performed before concluding she had an obscure diagnosis. The hospitals treating her should have access to all of her medical records, and a decision to take custody from her parents would not be taken lightly.

 

Wouldn't be surprised if this is a case of Munchausen by proxy or medical child abuse, where her parents are fabricating Justina's illness because they are crazy. As medical history is protected by law to remain confidential, the treating physicians and DCF can't release all the details. Meanwhile, the crazy parents can say whatever promotes mouth-breathing journalism...

 

 

Wouldn't be surprised if...yeah, very strong statement he made there.

Ooops.

[Googballz 39]

BTW...link to Pen being unequivocal in thinking the parents were crazy...here is his statement on that...

 

 

 

Knock yourself out.

 

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=432246&page=1

[MDC 5,890]

[Sho Nuff 719]

 

a link to page 1 was nice...especially after I showed the quote in question and there was nothing in that showing Pen to be unequivocal in his statement calling them crazy.

Even bolded it for GP.

 

Just amazing the beat down he continues to take.

[Googballz 39]

[Sho Nuff 719]

so much for GP admitting when he is wrong and proven so...

[Googballz 39]

so much for GP admitting when he is wrong and proven so...

Link to me being wrong?

[Sho Nuff 719]

[Googballz 39]

[FeelingMN 273]

I don't think anyone disputes that. But there has been no evidence of it in this case.

You have the same evidence the docs at BC based their decision on? Link.

[Googballz 39]

You have the same evidence the docs at BC based their decision on? Link.

No. And neither do you or Penultimate, who has said the parents are crazy and the sister has all kinds of syndromes.

 

I have what is public, which contains nothing about any abuse. The hospital who took her away treated her in the past without questioning the parents. Once the parents second guessed the diagnosis they gave all the sudden there was "abuse". Just seems fishy to me.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Dude...just stay down...the bout was called long ago...you have been KO'd multiple times yet you keep taking more punches.

[FeelingMN 273]

No. And neither do you or Penultimate, who has said the parents are crazy and the sister has all kinds of syndromes.

 

I have what is public, which contains nothing about any abuse. The hospital who took her away treated her in the past without questioning the parents. Once the parents second guessed the diagnosis they gave all the sudden there was "abuse". Just seems fishy to me.

No. No one has all the evidence. Only the BC docs, the state, and the presiding judge do. And they all seem to be on the same page here.

 

You're going off the father's testimony. His version of the facts might be quite different than what actually happened. And I honestly don't think doctors would contact protective services simply because of a disagreement over a diagnosis. Dude lost his cool...."tempers flared".....something happened that convinced the doctors something wasn't right.

 

The case will be revisited May 25. We'll find out more then.

[penultimatestraw 473]

I don't have the Mass DCS' "back". And this isn't a liberal versus conservative, little vs. big government issue.

 

I am assuming the doctors (pleural) at Boston Children's are competent, perhaps more so than a single physician at Tufts. One who didn't even attempt to make a definitive diagnosis before subjecting the child to potentially dangerous and unnecessary procedures, and in all likelihood committing her to several medications as well. Moreover, doctors generally don't make willy-nilly accusations which result in child protective services getting involved with their patients. I may be wrong, but I think the likelihood of a misdiagnosis and crazy abusive parents is higher than the BC docs and Mass DCS conspiring to imprison the child with a rare condition. One that coincidentally is associated with medical child abuse.

 

 

 

a link to page 1 was nice...especially after I showed the quote in question and there was nothing in that showing Pen to be unequivocal in his statement calling them crazy.

Even bolded it for GP.

 

Just amazing the beat down he continues to take.

He missed my third post as well. But you're right, arguing with him isn't worth it. RLLD and psychsurvivor at least bring a little to the discussion.

[psychsurvivor 2]

Some parents are beyond bad parents.....they're dangerous. If a professional suspects that a child is in danger it is incumbent upon them to act.

 

No evidence that these parents were like that. Hint for you, after all the scrutiny, if these parents were as bad as you want them to be, they would have been charged with a crime. The contradictory judge acknowledges that in the long term Justina has to go back to her parents. They have not been charged with anything. Further, they have 3 other daughters who grew up in the same household who stand behind the parents. Justina had had issues since very early age (including a stroke at the age of 6; try to fake that!!).

 

And psychsurvivor, why don't you share your story rather than linking others' stories? That Schumacher clip isn't exactly the nail in psychiatry's coffin. Does she have the right to be pissed? Sure. But she also comes across as more than a little confrontational in the vid, and maybe unstable. She suffered an unimaginable tragedy. How did she deal with that? Were you there with her? Did she maybe give the impression that she was a danger to herself? Is it really beyond the realm of possibility that she might have needed some professional help after what she went through if her behavior at the time warranted it?

 

I've shared my story many times, like here, comment by cannotsay,

 

http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/01/ny-times-invites-readers-to-a-dialogue-on-forced-treatment/#comment-19770

 

With respect to Christina Schumacher, you should have done a basic google. Her detention was found to be ILLEGAL by a judge like one month after the fact. So no danger to self or others. Just a psychiatric nut job abusing his/her power, which is very common among psychs.

 

Second, there is nothing therapeutic about being in a psych ward against your will. Nothing as in ABSOLUTELY nothing. I came back to the US and one year later my marriage felt apart because it became poisoned by psychiatry. After my ex-wife left, I cut all ties with the people I consider my ex-family for having been enablers on that abuse. I haven't spoken to them in years and truth to be told, I don't know if any of my parents are still alive.

 

Thankfully, in the US, the standard "danger to self or others" protects me from psychiatric abuse, even though I still have to live with the stigma http://www.antipsychiatry.org/stigma.htm . However, having seen what hell looks like during my own ordeal, I have a part time job as anti psychiatry activist (which I hope will become a full time job at some point once I am wealthy enough to not have to worry about my professional career).

 

The quacks (ie, psychs) are absolutely evil creatures who deserve to have their pseudoscience exposed. The Justina case is the most clear example of the lengths these evil individuals go to justify their own livelihoods.

[psychsurvivor 2]

By all accounts, she had multiple doctors before her time at BCH - why aren't all of them testifying in support of the original diagnosis?

 

Actually, another one did,

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/26/irresponsible-and-wrong-lawyer-hits-back-at-judges-leaked-ruling-that-includes-accusations-against-justina-pelletiers-parents/

 

"Staver said three psychiatric experts and Dr. Korson testified in court in the last months of 2013. One of the psychiatrists was the one from Boston Childrens Hospital who first diagnosed Justina with somatoform disorder. That doctor maintained a somatoform diagnosis to the court, Staver said. Another was from Boston Childrens who disagreed with the somatoform diagnosis but said Justina had another psychiatric condition known as conversion disorder. The third, Staver said, was a psychologist who had seen since Justina since 2006, well before the custody battle began. This psychologist believed that Justina suffered from a form a depression that resulted from her symptoms with mitochondrial disease. Dr. Korson maintained in court that Justina had mitochondrial disease, which impacts the energy-producing organelles of her cells.

 

To Staver, this shows that only one doctor insists that she has somaoform. So thats the so-called evidence that the judge is relying upon."

 

When I say that this case is creepy, is because it is indeed VERY creepy.

 

 

For the umpteenth time, no physician is going to take decisions which ultimately remove parental custody lightly. I know this from personal/professional experience. My initial thoughts before learning more details (see my first post) was something fishy was going on with the parents. It turns out I guessed correctly in the eyes of those with more data than you or I - both physicians and those involved with the legal process of removing custody.

 

Either you don't know enough psychiatrists/psychologists or you are still blinded by your own bias as "professional".

 

During my own ordeal I met around 10 mental health professionals (mostly psychiatrists, one a clinical psychologist). There were all as evil as they come for different reasons, including the American ones who had no power over me on the coercive aspect. That didn't prevent one of them from sending my wife to that Big Pharma front group known as NAMI http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/health/22nami.html?_r=0 which eventually resulted in our marriage coming to an end. The only one I would call a "normal" or "decent" person among them was the clinical psychologist whom I was seeing for CBT. The rest are people to whom not only I would not entrust my life -that goes without saying-, I wouldn't even entrust them with the keys of my car!

[psychsurvivor 2]

The case will be revisited May 25. We'll find out more then.

 

The parents are now in Washington DC meeting with federal lawmakers and the word in the Free Justina movement is that there will be an appeal filed in the next few days at both the state and federal levels; at the same time their attorneys plan to file malpractice lawsuits against the individual doctors so they cannot hide anymore behind DCF.

[IGotWorms 3,312]

No evidence that these parents were like that. Hint for you, after all the scrutiny, if these parents were as bad as you want them to be, they would have been charged with a crime. The contradictory judge acknowledges that in the long term Justina has to go back to her parents. They have not been charged with anything. Further, they have 3 other daughters who grew up in the same household who stand behind the parents. Justina had had issues since very early age (including a stroke at the age of 6; try to fake that!!).

 

 

I've shared my story many times, like here, comment by cannotsay,

 

http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/01/ny-times-invites-readers-to-a-dialogue-on-forced-treatment/#comment-19770

 

With respect to Christina Schumacher, you should have done a basic google. Her detention was found to be ILLEGAL by a judge like one month after the fact. So no danger to self or others. Just a psychiatric nut job abusing his/her power, which is very common among psychs.

 

Second, there is nothing therapeutic about being in a psych ward against your will. Nothing as in ABSOLUTELY nothing. I came back to the US and one year later my marriage felt apart because it became poisoned by psychiatry. After my ex-wife left, I cut all ties with the people I consider my ex-family for having been enablers on that abuse. I haven't spoken to them in years and truth to be told, I don't know if any of my parents are still alive.

 

Thankfully, in the US, the standard "danger to self or others" protects me from psychiatric abuse, even though I still have to live with the stigma http://www.antipsychiatry.org/stigma.htm . However, having seen what hell looks like during my own ordeal, I have a part time job as anti psychiatry activist (which I hope will become a full time job at some point once I am wealthy enough to not have to worry about my professional career).

 

The quacks (ie, psychs) are absolutely evil creatures who deserve to have their pseudoscience exposed. The Justina case is the most clear example of the lengths these evil individuals go to justify their own livelihoods.

I'm not so sure you survived psychosis after all

[psychsurvivor 2]

I'm not so sure you survived psychosis after all

What psychosis? As I explain in my comment, in Europe, the standard for civil commitment is "need for treatment" which means, whenever some psychiatric nut job thinks you need to be committed. Unless what happened in the US in the aftermath of the 1975 decision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Connor_v._Donaldson , the European Court of Human Rights, which is Europe's highest court on these issues (the jurisdiction of the ECHR extends beyond the EU), has repeatedly endorsed this type of abusive treatment,

 

http://egov.ufsc.br/portal/sites/default/files/anexos/33124-41808-1-PB.pdf

 

"The Court considers any determination of ‘‘unsoundness of

mind’’ to be valid as long as it is made by a psychiatrist, and

does not take into consideration the degree of affiliation of the

psychiatrist with the Stat"

 

"The case Herczegfalvy v. Austria (10533/83) is characteris-

tic of the Court’s difficulty in analysing the validity of medical

treatment. The applicant, who had been on a hunger strike,

was force-fed and given strong doses of neuroleptics. He

was also placed in seclusion, restrained with handcuffs, and

secured to a bed for several weeks on end. The Court criticized

the lengthy duration of the seclusion and the immobilization,

but accepted the argument of the Austrian government that

this type of treatment was justified for therapeutic reasons,

and thus could not be considered as inhuman and degrading.

As for the appropriateness of the medical treatment pro-

vided, various cases such Grare v. France (18835/91) or War-

ren v. United Kingdom (36982/97) show that the ECHR

always trusts the psychiatric medical evaluation, as far as it

satisfies the criteria of usual practice[5]."

 

There was no "psychosis" or "manic episode" or "suicidal idealization". My experience was like what this guy explains here http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/apr/04/living-with-ocd-david-adam . Only my evil ex-family thought it necessary to take me to a pscyh by force while I was on vacation in Europe (my ex wife had checked in my back that it was not possible to do the same in the US).

 

So my proposal is the following. For anybody here who defends psychiatry, I challenge him/her to enact the Rosenhan experiment on themselves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment . You let us know how it goes afterwards (if you manage to get out of the psych ward, that is!)

[FeelingMN 273]

No evidence that these parents were like that. Hint for you, after all the scrutiny, if these parents were as bad as you want them to be, they would have been charged with a crime. The contradictory judge acknowledges that in the long term Justina has to go back to her parents. They have not been charged with anything. Further, they have 3 other daughters who grew up in the same household who stand behind the parents. Justina had had issues since very early age (including a stroke at the age of 6; try to fake that!!).

 

I've shared my story many times, like here, comment by cannotsay,http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/01/ny-times-invites-readers-to-a-dialogue-on-forced-treatment/#comment-19770

With respect to Christina Schumacher, you should have done a basic google. Her detention was found to be ILLEGAL by a judge like one month after the fact. So no danger to self or others. Just a psychiatric nut job abusing his/her power, which is very common among psychs.

Second, there is nothing therapeutic about being in a psych ward against your will. Nothing as in ABSOLUTELY nothing. I came back to the US and one year later my marriage felt apart because it became poisoned by psychiatry. After my ex-wife left, I cut all ties with the people I consider my ex-family for having been enablers on that abuse. I haven't spoken to them in years and truth to be told, I don't know if any of my parents are still alive.

Thankfully, in the US, the standard "danger to self or others" protects me from psychiatric abuse, even though I still have to live with the stigma http://www.antipsychiatry.org/stigma.htm . However, having seen what hell looks like during my own ordeal, I have a part time job as anti psychiatry activist (which I hope will become a full time job at some point once I am wealthy enough to not have to worry about my professional career).

The quacks (ie, psychs) are absolutely evil creatures who deserve to have their pseudoscience exposed. The Justina case is the most clear example of the lengths these evil individuals go to justify their own livelihoods.

Good point about no charges being filed. I've wondered about that too. How can you take a child away because of medical child abuse....but not punish the parents?

 

As for Schumacher....

 

The involuntary hospitalization traces its roots to the summer, when the Schumachers separated after she sought a relief-from-domestic-abuse order in July. Court records indicate Schumacher indicated to her sister Louise Lynch that if anything happened to her two children, she would kill herself.

 

At issue was whether Schumacher represented a threat. The HowardCenter, a Fletcher Allen psychiatrist and a hospital social worker had stated they believed she might have a mental illness that required treatment and "poses a danger to herself and others," according to documents in the case.

 

Schumacher and her friends have maintained she posed no danger, and, ultimately, a judge agreed.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/24/christina-schumacher-gunnar-ludwig/4851231/

 

Dunno man. You wanna make this a black/white....evil/good issue, but I see a lot of gray. She expressed suicidal ideation in the event anything happened to her kids. Something happened to her kids....so she was admitted. Should she have been allowed to leave after 72 hours? I guess....but she seems to have a temper. Was she belligerent....after suffering a tragedy.....after saying she'd off herself? Is that why she remained inside for treatment?

 

I really have no idea.....but I do agree that being forced against your will to go through treatment isn't very therapeutic. In that regard, I agree with you in that it could seem an abuse of power.

 

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is one of my all time favorite movies/books. Read enough of Thomas Szasz and R.D. Laing to be somewhat acquainted with antipsychiatry. Couldn't access the link above about your story...so have no idea of what you've been through. Maybe just discuss it? There is a stigma associated with mental illness.....but much less so than when the paper in your link was published....and much less so when people get the sense that you've kicked its ass rather than it kicking yours.

[IGotWorms 3,312]

Good point about no charges being filed. I've wondered about that too. How can you take a child away because of medical child abuse....but not punish the parents?

 

There could be a variety of reasons for this. Differing burdens of proof could be one, probably clear and convincing versus beyond a reasonable doubt but that's just my guess. Another reason could be that you have different agencies involved in making the decisions, so perhaps one considers it a priority or has the resources to pursue action while the other does not. But most likely is that the decision makers don't see this as a criminal matter so much as a child welfare and psychiatric matter. Would punishing the parents really achieve positive results in any way?

[psychsurvivor 2]

Dunno man. You wanna make this a black/white....evil/good issue, but I see a lot of gray. She expressed suicidal ideation in the event anything happened to her kids. Something happened to her kids....so she was admitted. Should she have been allowed to leave after 72 hours? I guess....but she seems to have a temper. Was she belligerent....after suffering a tragedy.....after saying she'd off herself? Is that why she remained inside for treatment?

I really have no idea.....but I do agree that being forced against your will to go through treatment isn't very therapeutic. In that regard, I agree with you in that it could seem an abuse of power.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is one of my all time favorite movies/books. Read enough of Thomas Szasz and R.D. Laing to be somewhat acquainted with antipsychiatry. Couldn't access the link above about your story...so have no idea of what you've been through. Maybe just discuss it? There is a stigma associated with mental illness.....but much less so than when the paper in your link was published....and much less so when people get the sense that you've kicked its ass rather than it kicking yours.

 

There a few things in life that are indeed black or white and coercive psychiatry is one of them. From where I stand, it is like the position on slavery (and in fact, in the XIX-th psychs thought that black slaves who wanted to be free suffered from a "mental illness", no kidding! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapetomania ).

 

The idea the government should have a prerogative on citizens who have not committed any crimes to lock them up for what they MIGHT DO vs for what they have done runs counter to our system of civil liberties. If you want to lock up people for what they "might do", I have a few ideas,

 

- Preemptively lock up blacks in inner cities. According to the FBI data 50% of all criminal killings are committed by blacks. If you narrow down to inner cities, the correlation is even higher.

 

- Let government shut up preemptively people like Martin Bashir or Alec Baldwin so that they are prevented from losing their jobs.

 

- Preemptively lock up every single gay male and IV drug user in America. I can assure that that alone would make the HIV infection rate go to the floor. If you don't believe me, read this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2688320/. There would still be HIV transmission due to heterosexuals but the transmission rate would be minuscule compared to what it is now due to these two groups of people.

 

You get the idea. Psychiatry has ZERO ability to predict who is going to become violent and when. Again, do not trust me, trust Allen Frances (hope by now people understand who this guy is and why his opinion matters) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allen-frances/gun-control-cant-work-if-_b_2359049.html

 

"It is impossible to predict in advance who is likely to become violent and when."

 

And the best example is this week's shooter who, after all, was under psychiatric supervision.

 

I am not kidding that some people used as an argument against slavery the dilemma of what to do with people incapable of living in freedom, after all not all masters were "bad people".

 

With respect to my experience, I encourage you to read it entirely, but it boils down to this. I fear HIV more than the average person. The psychs call this "OCD", which of course is as invented a disease as are the others that are listed in the DSM (per Tom Insel's statement). In the US, as long as you are not a danger to self or others, you cannot be locked up if you so not commit any crimes (in the case of Christina Schumacher, the judge determined that she did not meet these criteria when she was locked up and he deemed her detention illegal). In Europe -although the actual procedure varies from country to country-, all it takes is a psych to say, hey, you need to be locked up because I say so. In fact, this was exactly the same standard that existed in he US prior to 1975. So how do you get out of there? Treating your psych in the same way slaves treated their masters: yes sir!, you are right, I am mentally ill. In fact, not much has changed during the last 40 years since Rosenhan did his famous experiment. The trick to get out of psych ward is still the same: tell you tormentor what he/she wants to hear, take whatever meds they give you, then get out. I stayed in two different wards for several weeks. Only people who are ignorant about what a stay in a psych ward is can openly say that it has "therapeutic value". My own experience almost cracked me. I cannot imagine what it has to be like for Justina, 1 year in psychiatric facilities.

 

I always ask people to take the Rosenhan challenge but for some reason, I have never had any takers. Maybe I will be lucky this time, although I doubt it very much. Too much bravado but very little courage around here .

[psychsurvivor 2]

There could be a variety of reasons for this. Differing burdens of proof could be one, probably clear and convincing versus beyond a reasonable doubt but that's just my guess. Another reason could be that you have different agencies involved in making the decisions, so perhaps one considers it a priority or has the resources to pursue action while the other does not. But most likely is that the decision makers don't see this as a criminal matter so much as a child welfare and psychiatric matter. Would punishing the parents really achieve positive results in any way?

But this statement of yours doesn't make any sense my friend. If the parents cannot be criminally charged for "medical child abuse" (which is what happens when there is genuine Munchhausen by proxy), then case closed. Stop the nonsense.

 

Let me give you the actual reason why the parents were not charged. As criminal defendants they would have had discovery powers well beyond what a civil trial in family court allows, not to mention that a DA would have to convince a jury that listening to a mito expert at Tufts vs listening to a BCH psych is a criminal offense. Good luck with that.

 

There is absolutely nothing to this case except evil Harvard affiliated psychiatrists who work at BCH and corrupt government officials who rubber stamp their wishes. Nothing more, nothing less.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Actually, another one did,

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/26/irresponsible-and-wrong-lawyer-hits-back-at-judges-leaked-ruling-that-includes-accusations-against-justina-pelletiers-parents/

 

When I say that this case is creepy, is because it is indeed VERY creepy.

 

Either you don't know enough psychiatrists/psychologists or you are still blinded by your own bias as "professional".

 

During my own ordeal I met around 10 mental health professionals (mostly psychiatrists, one a clinical psychologist). There were all as evil as they come for different reasons, including the American ones who had no power over me on the coercive aspect. That didn't prevent one of them from sending my wife to that Big Pharma front group known as NAMI http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/health/22nami.html?_r=0 which eventually resulted in our marriage exploding. The only one I would call a "normal" or "decent" person among them was the clinical psychologist whom I was seeing for CBT. The rest are people to whom not only I would not entrust my life -that goes without saying-, I wouldn't even entrust them with the keys of my car!

I'm more interested in someone on the medical side supporting the original diagnosis of mitochondrial disease. Nobody besides the Tufts' physician has come forward to substantiate his diagnosis. Psychiatrists aren't trained to diagnose mitochondrial disorders. Or why don't they just do the god damn muscle biopsy?!?!

 

I'm sorry you had a bad experience with mental health professionals, but I can assure you they aren't all the evil creatures you describe. Given your background, what would it take for you to think the parents are guilty of medical child abuse?

[penultimatestraw 473]

What psychosis? As I explain in my comment, in Europe, the standard for civil commitment is "need for treatment" which means, whenever some psychiatric nut job thinks you need to be committed. Unless what happened in the US in the aftermath of the 1975 decision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Connor_v._Donaldson , the European Court of Human Rights, which is Europe's highest court on these issues (the jurisdiction of the ECHR extends beyond the EU), has repeatedly endorsed this type of abusive treatment,

 

http://egov.ufsc.br/portal/sites/default/files/anexos/33124-41808-1-PB.pdf

 

"The Court considers any determination of ‘‘unsoundness of

mind’’ to be valid as long as it is made by a psychiatrist, and

does not take into consideration the degree of affiliation of the

psychiatrist with the Stat"

 

"The case Herczegfalvy v. Austria (10533/83) is characteris-

tic of the Court’s difficulty in analysing the validity of medical

treatment. The applicant, who had been on a hunger strike,

was force-fed and given strong doses of neuroleptics. He

was also placed in seclusion, restrained with handcuffs, and

secured to a bed for several weeks on end. The Court criticized

the lengthy duration of the seclusion and the immobilization,

but accepted the argument of the Austrian government that

this type of treatment was justified for therapeutic reasons,

and thus could not be considered as inhuman and degrading.

As for the appropriateness of the medical treatment pro-

vided, various cases such Grare v. France (18835/91) or War-

ren v. United Kingdom (36982/97) show that the ECHR

always trusts the psychiatric medical evaluation, as far as it

satisfies the criteria of usual practice[5]."

 

There was no "psychosis" or "manic episode" or "suicidal idealization". My experience was like what this guy explains here http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/apr/04/living-with-ocd-david-adam . Only my evil ex-family thought it necessary to take me to a pscyh by force while I was on vacation in Europe (my ex wife had checked in my back that it was not possible to do the same in the US).

 

So my proposal is the following. For anybody here who defends psychiatry, I challenge him/her to enact the Rosenhan experiment on themselves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment . You let us know how it goes afterwards (if you manage to get out of the psych ward, that is!)

For anyone who criticizes psychiatry, I challenge them to help a schizophrenic, bipolar or severely depressed patient without psychotherapy or medications. Let me know how that goes afterwards.

[psychsurvivor 2]

For anyone who criticizes psychiatry, I challenge them to help a schizophrenic, bipolar or severely depressed patient without psychotherapy or medications. Let me know how that goes afterwards.

Having spent several weeks locked up with people so labelled (they are as human as you and I). In one of the two wards, I shared my room with a guy who was labelled "schizophrenic". I count several people labelled as "bipolar" among my friends and I have met countless of survivors with those labels who live their lives peacefully without offending anyone. You can meet a few here http://openparadigmproject.com/ . Tell those people that they need (we need!) to be on drugs or else .

 

What you are doing here is called "scaremongering" not very different from this (minute 1:20 and after)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AXAOT_swIE

 

 

People fear what they don't understand. I get that. But the people who behave in ways non approved by DSM committees are still human beings, they (we!) have their (our) free will and they (we) deserve respect. As long as (we) they commit no crimes, we deserve the same civil rights as anybody else.

 

For all your lecturing about your "professional experience" you are coming out as something much more nefarious: a bigot who agrees with the pathologization categories of the DSM.

[psychsurvivor 2]

I'm sorry you had a bad experience with mental health professionals, but I can assure you they aren't all the evil creatures you describe. Given your background, what would it take for you to think the parents are guilty of medical child abuse?

 

EDIT: I misunderstood your question, I thought you were talking about mine (so much I hate them ).

 

That is a very interesting twist. Technically no since I was an adult when this happened. The only thing that I would have been able to do if this had happened in the US is to sue the psychs for malpractice (you parents can report whatever they want, the actual decision to commit you lies in the psychiatrist who gets his/her decision rubber stamped in court). In the case of Justina, her admission is technically voluntary since it is with the recommendation of her legal guardian, DCF.

 

My case was so clear cut that it didn't warrant involuntary treatment under US laws that my American psych made it crystal clear that that could not have happened here. And I reciprocated that if he ever tried to suggest it, I would sue him . So, after I stopped all my contact with the evil profession of psychiatry, I have been enjoying my life free of oppression. I still have to deal with the stigma, but at least from a legal point of view, I am fine.

 

The other reason I am so sympathetic to these parents is because unlike mine, they understand the evilness of psychiatry and want to spare their daughter from it.

 

WITH RESPECT TO JUSTINA'S PARENTS. From what I have read, in cases of genuine medical abuse, there is enough evidence to charge the parents with something (the Boston Globe said that Korson had helped prosecute 3 cases of actual medical abuse). Also, in general the abused children get better very quickly when they are away from their parents. Spare me of a Stockholm syndrome speech. We are talking physiologically better. In Justina's case, not only she expressed in no ambiguous terms to her court appointed lawyer that she wanted to return home with her parents, but her health condition became worse with the BCH treatment plan (which I can assure you necessarily included a big chunk of psychotropic drugs).

 

Nothing in this case makes any sense except the psychiatric abuse angle, as far as I am concerned.

[drobeski 3,061]

Child abuse is a crime right ? Have the parents been arrested and charged yet ?

[penultimatestraw 473]

Having spent several weeks locked up with people so labelled (they are as human as you and I). In one of the two wards, I shared my room with a guy who was labelled "schizophrenic". I count several people labelled as "bipolar" among my friends and I have met countless of survivors with those labels who live their lives peacefully without offending anyone. You can meet a few here http://openparadigmproject.com/ . Tell those people that they need (we need!) to be on drugs or else .

 

What you are doing here is called "scaremongering" not very different from this (minute 1:20 and after)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AXAOT_swIE

 

 

People fear what they don't understand. I get that. But the people who behave in ways non approved by DSM committees are still human beings, they (we!) have their (our) free will and they (we) deserve respect. As long as (we) they commit no crimes, we deserve the same civil rights as anybody else.

 

For all your lecturing about your "professional experience" you are coming out as something much more nefarious: a bigot who agrees with the pathologization categories of the DSM.

I'm not fearmongering, nor advocating everyone be "locked up". Just recognizing psychiatrists provide useful care for many people. OCD is an interesting example. My roommate in med school has it, so I saw first hand how much better he functioned on his medications. Sure they have side effects, as does just about anything one ingests. But he almost had to drop out several times while off them because of his untreated mental illness. And he is a child psychiatrist today, plus one of the most intelligent and thoughtful individuals I know.

 

Of course there are bad psychiatrists, as there are practitioners in all fields of medicine. And all occupations. Sure the DSM is far from perfect. This doesn't mean the profession and treatment modalities are always out of line - I'll argue they promote far more good than the few cases of mistreatment you highlight.

 

Lost in your vitriol is the motivation of the non-psychiatric docs who suspected MCA in the first place. Why would they promote evaluation which removed parental custody? Why aren't physicians clamoring for confirmation of Justina's mitochondrial disorder?

[penultimatestraw 473]

Child abuse is a crime right ? Have the parents been arrested and charged yet ?

Already been addressed. Try and keep up.

[drobeski 3,061]

Already been addressed. Try and keep up.

is that a yes ? My job and life demand more than sitting in front of a computer all day and night. A simple yes or no regarding the criminal proceedings against the parents would suffice.

 

TIA

[Googballz 39]

I'm not so sure you survived psychosis after all

Innerweb diagnosis is in Penultimate's wheelhouse. Please stay out of it.

 

I surprised he hasn't diagnosed Psycho yet......he has probably provided too much information.