Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Phurfur

Justina Pelletier

Recommended Posts

Interesting you go with this same like that drobeski tried.

Where has anyone claimed that BCH people can do no wrong?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody. Pretty much everyone who has suggested there is more to this story than meets the sensational headlines has acknowledged the possibility that BCH docs, etc. may have abused their power. On the flipside, for those that are convinced of an abuse of power, I've seen no posts which allow for the possibility that the psycho-pharma-government conspiracy is incorrect.

Justina, in her own words, minute 7:25, last Friday said that SHE "WANTS TO GO HOME NOW"!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your mom's muffin is delicious....even the crumbs. Yum!

My mom once shaved our poodle named Muffin when she lost it. Interesting you said that. Very interesting. :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Justina, in her own words, minute 7:25, last Friday said that SHE ###### "WANTS TO GO HOME NOW"!

 

come on, she's just a child, she cannot be entrusted to make medical and personal decisions on her own,

 

 

 

 

Unless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

come on, she's just a child, she cannot be entrusted to make medical and personal decisions on her own,

Unless

:) . I am waiting to hear how Mr pen, MD spins Justina's own words. I see it coming: she has been manipulated to say whatever the parents want!!

 

Boy, given that the parents have seen her only 1 hour a week for the last 14 months, it doesn't speak very well of Massachusetts DCF "persuasion" powers :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Innocent until proven guilty, burden of proof is on the accuser. That's the American way.

If there was abuse, where is the proof? Especially given the publicity.

She's gone downhill since be taken. That's right, taken from her family. To do that a sound, provable and valid lock tight reason is needed.

 

You're right, we don't know all the facts but holy cow what we do know sure screams this was clusterfock by the state and an investigation is warranted. Thinking anything else is simply blindly believing what you want to believe despite common sense and American values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Innocent until proven guilty, burden of proof is on the accuser. That's the American way.

If there was abuse, where is the proof? Especially given the publicity.

She's gone downhill since be taken. That's right, taken from her family. To do that a sound, provable and valid lock tight reason is needed.

 

You're right, we don't know all the facts but holy cow what we do know sure screams this was clusterfock by the state and an investigation is warranted. Thinking anything else is simply blindly believing what you want to believe despite common sense and American values.

The family can (and has been) screaming to the press all they want, with THEIR version of the facts. The state and the hospital are bound to respect the privacy of the child and so can't speak through the media.

 

This was all explained quite some time ago by folks who have been following the thread from the start, but you thought you'd come in on page 17 and lay down some knowledge. Arrogant, really

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The family can (and has been) screaming to the press all they want, with THEIR version of the facts. The state and the hospital are bound to respect the privacy of the child and so can't speak through the media.

This was all explained quite some time ago by folks who have been following the thread from the start, but you thought you'd come in on page 17 and lay down some knowledge. Arrogant, really

Speaking of arrogance...

 

It has been explained to you many times that under US laws, disagreement with a doctor -even if that doctor is a Harvard affiliated doctor- does not warrant taking the custody away from parents -especially when a doctor testifies under oath siding with Justina's parents. Nor calling the doctors that took your child "Nazis" or calling names DCF workers AFTER THE FACT. That does not warrant giving the custody to the state away from the parents.

 

Since there is no criminal charge that the parents did indeed abuse Justina, your whole argument about "the other side" is completely moot. The other side could swear under oath that they believe Justina's parents are possessed by evil spirits and claim to see "dead people". That is not enough to take Justina's custody away.

 

In your worldview, a competing testimony by BCH doctors is "enough" to take the custody of a child. As it has been explained to you numerous times, that says more about your own toxic worldview than about the American rule of law. I also invited you several times to move to a country that matches better your worldview: Cuba or China, even Putin's Russia :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Innocent until proven guilty, burden of proof is on the accuser. That's the American way.

If there was abuse, where is the proof? Especially given the publicity.

She's gone downhill since be taken. That's right, taken from her family. To do that a sound, provable and valid lock tight reason is needed.

 

You're right, we don't know all the facts but holy cow what we do know sure screams this was clusterfock by the state and an investigation is warranted. Thinking anything else is simply blindly believing what you want to believe despite common sense and American values.

Please spare us the "American values" rhetoric. An investigation is ongoing, and so far the courts have sided with BCH.

 

Pretty amazing how you think several doctors would maliciously take away parental custody. And the Department of Children and Families plus the courts would get in on the act, digging in their heels a year+ later. What would motivate such actions??????? If the BCH docs believe this is medical child abuse, is it ethical to wait for a judge to weigh in on the diagnosis?

 

Although we're not privy to their proof, the fundamental argument is her original diagnosis of mitochondrial disease has never been made definitively. Yet because of an assumed diagnosis, she's undergone at least one invasive procedure and has been placed on medications which carry risk as well. And I'm not talking about antidepressants. Hell, technically speaking she could have mitochondrial disease and still be a victim of medical child abuse.

 

Meanwhile, you are convinced of an injustice based on sensationalism and a fringe movement which allies itself with Scientology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The family can (and has been) screaming to the press all they want, with THEIR version of the facts. The state and the hospital are bound to respect the privacy of the child and so can't speak through the media.

 

This was all explained quite some time ago by folks who have been following the thread from the start, but you thought you'd come in on page 17 and lay down some knowledge. Arrogant, really

He's usually pretty reasonable, but has an unbearable smugness at times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two points,

- I am all in favor of VOLUNTARY pseudoscience, be it psychiatry, astrology or homeopathy.

Exactly my point which is why I say that there is no room for psychiatry whatsoever.

 

I disagree with 80% of what Allen Frances says or stands for.

Now, I am not doing the googling for you. Research who is Allen Frances and why his opinion matters.

:overhead:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's usually pretty reasonable, but has an unbearable smugness at times.

"At times"? I'd say that's a little generous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:overhead:

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter how many times the lie that increased incarceration rates are do to de-institutionalization, the lie remains a a lie (emphasis mine).

I never mentioned anything about increased incarceration rates, or that they're due to deinstitutionalization. :unsure:

 

The links I gave discussed how an increasing number of prisoners are mentally ill....not how the mentally ill are increasing the number of prisoners. You can't understand that distinction....with all your rigorous training?

 

:overhead:

 

"And some mentally ill people spend time in jails without having committed any offense at all. Several states authorize the police to arrest mentally ill people who have not broken any law, simply to promote public order. More commonly, hospitals transfer patients to jails to handle overflow. Even children may be confined in criminal detention centers because there are so few treatment facilities for severely mentally ill children. This reliance on the criminal justice system as a surrogate mental health system wastes life and treasure, and conflicts with basic notions of justice."

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/saving-normal/201303/prison-or-treatment-the-mentally-ill

 

Great idea psychsurvivor!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please spare us the "American values" rhetoric. An investigation is ongoing, and so far the courts have sided with BCH.

 

Pretty amazing how you think several doctors would maliciously take away parental custody. And the Department of Children and Families plus the courts would get in on the act, digging in their heels a year+ later. What would motivate such actions??????? If the BCH docs believe this is medical child abuse, is it ethical to wait for a judge to weigh in on the diagnosis?

 

Although we're not privy to their proof, the fundamental argument is her original diagnosis of mitochondrial disease has never been made definitively. Yet because of an assumed diagnosis, she's undergone at least one invasive procedure and has been placed on medications which carry risk as well. And I'm not talking about antidepressants. Hell, technically speaking she could have mitochondrial disease and still be a victim of medical child abuse.

 

Meanwhile, you are convinced of an injustice based on sensationalism and a fringe movement which allies itself with Scientology.

WOW, now the "rationale" is that the judge has a prerogative to override Mark Korson medical recommendations. BTW, if you had read the two Boston Globe articles you would have learned that BCH deemed that Justina's feeding tube was medically necessary after all. And if you had been current with the latest developments, you'd had learned that Justina was sent back to Mark Korson after 14 months.

 

Blind faith in BCH docs coupled with blind faith in a third rate judge. Like in the US miscarriages of justice have NEVER happened :).

 

You are coming across as a pathetic bully doctor. Instead of admitting that you might be wrong, you are doubling down your criticism. No wonder you are so sympathetic to the BCH bullies whom I am sure you see as your "brethren in bullying".

 

With respect to throwing the "Scientology" card I am surprised that the "sage" of the forum resorted to the "guilt by association" fallacy. Not all critics of psychiatry are Scientologists. In fact, none of the three most intellectually rigorous ones, Szasz, Laing or Foucault were Scientologists. I think that probably you are not used to having your nonsense and arrogance challenged and you are throwing every intimidation tactic from the Soviet propaganda books you can find :).

 

Remember "in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king"? In a forum where few have anything near to a rigorous scientific training, a pathetic MD old fart might look great. When your nonsense is rigorously examined it doesn't stand any serious scrutiny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never mentioned anything about increased incarceration rates, or that they're due to deinstitutionalization. :unsure:

The links I gave discussed how an increasing number of prisoners are mentally ill....not how the mentally ill are increasing the number of prisoners. You can't understand that distinction....with all your rigorous training?

:overhead:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/saving-normal/201303/prison-or-treatment-the-mentally-ill

Great idea psychsurvivor!

And I am sure that there are many "gay prisoners", like these,

 

http://abcnews.go.com/News/story?id=7942546

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trauma-kill-yale-professor-died-police-custody-police/story?id=21084815

 

According to your twisted logic, if the APA had not removed homosexuality from the DSM none of that would happened :).

 

What's your point, that people who are labeled by the DSM quacks should be immune from criminal prosecution?

 

If there is an intelligent point that you are trying to make I don't see it.

 

Before 1975, in the US, you could be locked up by a quack without having committed any crimes, just because the quack said so. Now you cannot be locked up unless you are shown to be "dangerous" regardless of whether the quack likes how you behave or thinks you are "out of your mind".

 

Some people who behave in strange ways, end up committing crimes and in jail. Fine. Why should these people be treated differently from anybody else?

 

I do not believe in "insanity defenses" or anything like that. Equality before the law means that the criminal laws apply to all equally, regardless of whether APA quacks think you are crazy or you were raised in an inner city, gang filled neighborhood that made you more prone to be involved with "bad stuff" at an early age.

 

If you want to live in a "minority report" type of society, again, you have chosen the wrong country. As an American by choice, not by accident, I suggest you move to China or Cuba where the type of totalitarian regime that you defend already exists. We will not miss you once you are gone, I can promise you that :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"At times"? I'd say that's a little generous

as opposed to being a smug pompous jump to conclusions douche full time ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:) . I am waiting to hear how Mr pen, MD spins Justina's own words. I see it coming: she has been manipulated to say whatever the parents want!!

 

Boy, given that the parents have seen her only 1 hour a week for the last 14 months, it doesn't speak very well of Massachusetts DCF "persuasion" powers :).

He will diagnose her as having the same disorder he diagnosed her sister with using nothing more than a one sentence quote in the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He will diagnose her as having the same disorder he diagnosed her sister with using nothing more than a one sentence quote in the OP.

I detect some latent hostility towards doctors here. Almost as if you've been treated badly by them, or suffered a loss at their hands. I'd ask your ex-wife but her mouth is full.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I detect some latent hostility towards doctors here. Almost as if you've been treated badly by them, or suffered a loss at their hands. I'd ask your ex-wife but her mouth is full.

:clap:

 

I think we all sensed that doctor resent. They must leave a bad taste in his mouth. :banana:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but you thought you'd come in on page 17 and lay down some knowledge. Arrogant, really

 

I'm not "laying down knowledge" at all. I was just re-stating common sense thats already been stated once, as it appears to be lost on some of you is all.

 

It's sorta sad that it has to be repeated. :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as opposed to being a smug pompous jump to conclusions douche full time ?

And you say I'm a fake lawyer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I am sure that there are many "gay prisoners", like these,http://abcnews.go.com/News/story?id=7942546http://abcnews.go.com/US/trauma-kill-yale-professor-died-police-custody-police/story?id=21084815

According to your twisted logic, if the APA had not removed homosexuality from the DSM none of that would happened :).

What's your point, that people who are labeled by the DSM quacks should be immune from criminal prosecution?

If there is an intelligent point that you are trying to make I don't see it.

Before 1975, in the US, you could be locked up by a quack without having committed any crimes, just because the quack said so. Now you cannot be locked up unless you are shown to be "dangerous" regardless of whether the quack likes how you behave or thinks you are "out of your mind".

Some people who behave in strange ways, end up committing crimes and in jail. Fine. Why should these people be treated differently from anybody else?

I do not believe in "insanity defenses" or anything like that. Equality before the law means that the criminal laws apply to all equally, regardless of whether APA quacks think you are crazy or you were raised in an inner city, gang filled neighborhood that made you more prone to be involved with "bad stuff" at an early age.

If you want to live in a "minority report" type of society, again, you have chosen the wrong country. As an American by choice, not by accident, I suggest you move to China or Cuba where the type of totalitarian regime that you defend already exists. We will not miss you once you are gone, I can promise you that :).

Ahhh.....you're one of those folks who equate pedophilia with homosexuality. Doesn't surprise me.

 

So you cannot be locked up without being shown to be dangerous....and you were locked up.....so you were shown to be dangerous. Maybe learn from your mistakes and move on? :)

 

Point is, there are people out there who respond well to psychiatric treatment. They should be afforded every opportunity to get the treatment they need....including involuntary treatment when the situation merits it. :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh.....you're one of those folks who equate pedophilia with homosexuality. Doesn't surprise me.

So you cannot be locked up without being shown to be dangerous....and you were locked up.....so you were shown to be dangerous. Maybe learn from your mistakes and move on? :)

Point is, there are people out there who respond well to psychiatric treatment. They should be afforded every opportunity to get the treatment they need....including involuntary treatment when the situation merits it. :dunno:

Moron,

 

I have repeated numerous times that my commitment happened in Europe, not the US. Hater Pete Earley explains here,

 

http://www.peteearley.com/2013/09/02/our-focus-on-danger-for-involuntary-commitments-is-out-of-step-with-the-world/

 

How do other countries handle civil commitments to mental hospitals?

 

Forcing someone into treatment against his/her wishes is not only controversial in our country, but in others too. In the U.S., each state establishes its own specific criteria, but all states require someone to be a danger to themselves or others before he/she can be forced into a hospital. [several have adopted looser language, such as "gravely disabled" or "unable to care for self" to their criteria, but dangerousness remains the key criteria.]

 

I was surprised recently when I discovered that our focus on dangerousness is out-of-step with the rest of the world. Most other countries rely on what is called a ”need for treatment” standard.

 

So in Europe situations like mine or what happened to this lady in the UK are not unusual,

 

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/02/forced-caesarean-risk-mother-child

 

The council at the centre of a row over an Italian woman who was given a forced caesarean section and then had her baby taken from her said the decision was taken over concerns about the "risks to mother and child".

 

According to reports, the 35-year-old woman came to Britain in June 2012 when heavily pregnant for a training course at Stansted airport in Essex. She reportedly had a panic attack connected to a failure to take regular medication for an existing bipolar condition, and was restrained and sectioned under the Mental Health Act.

 

Essex social services won a high court order for the birth to be carried out by caesarean section and the baby girl, born in August, was taken into care [see footnote]. The mother returned from Italy in February to request custody of her daughter, telling a family court judge, Roderick Newton, that she had come to terms with her condition and was now sufficiently well. Newton expressed sympathy and said the mother was coherent and convincing, but ruled that social workers' concerns that the woman might again neglect to take her medication meant the girl, now 15 months, should be placed for adoption.

 

When you give quacks unchecked power, things like this or the Justina case happen. In the US, people cannot be committed unless they are dangerous except if you are a child and a "child protection" agency steps in to commit you. That's what happened in the Justina case. Based on the information that has been made public, the commitment of Justina was deemed "voluntary" because is was agreed by it guardian when it happened: Massachusetts' DCF.

 

I was going to repeat my mantra that you are a "useful idiot" for psychiatry. I take away the "useful" part. You are an insufferable idiot. And an a-hole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moron,

 

 

I was going to repeat my mantra that you are a "useful idiot" for psychiatry. I take away the "useful" part. You are an insufferable idiot. And an a-hole.

Way to stay above the fray. :thumbsup:

 

It's good to see they invented straight jackets that you can type in. They've come a long way in treating loony birds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW, now the "rationale" is that the judge has a prerogative to override Mark Korson medical recommendations. BTW, if you had read the two Boston Globe articles you would have learned that BCH deemed that Justina's feeding tube was medically necessary after all. And if you had been current with the latest developments, you'd had learned that Justina was sent back to Mark Korson after 14 months.

 

Blind faith in BCH docs coupled with blind faith in a third rate judge. Like in the US miscarriages of justice have NEVER happened :).

 

You are coming across as a pathetic bully doctor. Instead of admitting that you might be wrong, you are doubling down your criticism. No wonder you are so sympathetic to the BCH bullies whom I am sure you see as your "brethren in bullying".

 

With respect to throwing the "Scientology" card I am surprised that the "sage" of the forum resorted to the "guilt by association" fallacy. Not all critics of psychiatry are Scientologists. In fact, none of the three most intellectually rigorous ones, Szasz, Laing or Foucault were Scientologists. I think that probably you are not used to having your nonsense and arrogance challenged and you are throwing every intimidation tactic from the Soviet propaganda books you can find :).

 

Remember "in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king"? In a forum where few have anything near to a rigorous scientific training, a pathetic MD old fart might look great. When your nonsense is rigorously examined it doesn't stand any serious scrutiny.

pow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm not "laying down knowledge" at all. I was just re-stating common sense thats already been stated once, as it appears to be lost on some of you is all.

 

It's sorta sad that it has to be repeated. :dunno:

How the sam he!! is it "common sense" that a number of doctors would conspire with the courts and Mass DCF to abduct a child?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How the sam he!! is it "common sense" that a number of doctors would conspire with the courts and Mass DCF to abduct a child?

 

I don't buy into conspiracy theories. What I do buy into is that mis-management, arrogance, beuacracy, and covering your butt by doctors and gov't officials is more common than we'd like to think.

 

The simple fact that the family has not been formally charged with any crime whatsoever, even given all this publicicy, lends me to use my common sense that there really is NOT any substantial proof of record to actually take a child from their parents.

 

My common sense also tells me that the fact this girl has deteriorated since she was taken is an indicator that she was under better care from the family and doctors with the original diagnosis.

 

That's the commons sense I'm speaking of. Maybe I'm wrong, wouldn't be the first, but considering all the above my inclination is that a series of mistakes, doubling down on those mistakes and then trying to cover your ass on those mistakes by a doctor, hostpital and judge seems likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I detect some latent hostility towards doctors here. Almost as if you've been treated badly by them, or suffered a loss at their hands. I'd ask your ex-wife but her mouth is full.

I don't have an ex-wife.

 

Another innerweb misdiagnosis by Dr. Doolittle. :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yawn

Come on now. He used his letters to form a word. That's better than his usual smilie. That's a major accomplishment for our resident Cro-Magnon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Way to stay above the fray. :thumbsup:

 

It's good to see they invented straight jackets that you can type in. They've come a long way in treating loony birds.

Shhh... If we stop feeding it, maybe it will go away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shhh... If we stop feeding it, maybe it will get taken away

More like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't buy into conspiracy theories. What I do buy into is that mis-management, arrogance, beuacracy, and covering your butt by doctors and gov't officials is more common than we'd like to think.

 

The simple fact that the family has not been formally charged with any crime whatsoever, even given all this publicicy, lends me to use my common sense that there really is NOT any substantial proof of record to actually take a child from their parents.

 

My common sense also tells me that the fact this girl has deteriorated since she was taken is an indicator that she was under better care from the family and doctors with the original diagnosis.

 

That's the commons sense I'm speaking of. Maybe I'm wrong, wouldn't be the first, but considering all the above my inclination is that a series of mistakes, doubling down on those mistakes and then trying to cover your ass on those mistakes by a doctor, hostpital and judge seems likely.

We've already addressed all these points, so I'll let you read to update your "common sense".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on now. He used his letters to form a word. That's better than his usual smilie. That's a major accomplishment for our resident Cro-Magnon.

how's the slumber party planning going ?You girls get beiber fever yet ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how's the slumber party planning going ?You girls get beiber fever yet ?

Bieber is old news, Fatty. Get with the times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moron,

I have repeated numerous times that my commitment happened in Europe, not the US. Hater Pete Earley explains here,

 

So in Europe situations like mine or what happened to this lady in the UK are not unusual,

 

When you give quacks unchecked power, things like this or the Justina case happen. In the US, people cannot be committed unless they are dangerous except if you are a child and a "child protection" agency steps in to commit you. That's what happened in the Justina case. Based on the information that has been made public, the commitment of Justina was deemed "voluntary" because is was agreed by it guardian when it happened: Massachusetts' DCF.

I was going to repeat my mantra that you are a "useful idiot" for psychiatry. I take away the "useful" part. You are an insufferable idiot. And an a-hole.

You forgot to smile. :)

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×