PatVerfue update German Supreme Court decision on forced treatment: It is now illegal!

Update: 2-26-2013

Now obvious: Psychiatry is brute force!

Berlin, 01.17.2013: The Federal Constitutional Court had established in 2011 by two orders of legal certainty with which it has established that coercive psychiatric treatment was indeed practiced everywhere, but in the 63 years since the founding of this republic has never been a fundamental law compatible law, she would have can legalize. In response to all these laws were fundamental and human law illegally ever, psychiatry has now made ​​plain sight, they actually only a rape system, which had been hiding to deceive the public in a Helfermäntelchen and supposedly straight again have reformed. This false facade of "giving" and a "reformist progress" they could no longer be maintained, but had to show their true colors. Their criminal violence grimace Would Give her inner goal would be, this violence in the profession as a socially she applied load been felt and they would have welcomed this exception to the use of violence by joyfully höchstrichterlichem decision.As it was, she had to reveal their true character to decouvrieren, so give it all Camouflage and deception and the immediate restoration of the practice of violence as alleged "necessity" require: for example, in statements DGPPN and DGSP, the psychiatric violence always on hand to assist standing Diakonia and judges of the German Association of Judges. We save a list of other sycophants. The Bundestag is now followed the cries and has obediently adopted fast-track a bill to legalize compulsory treatment. He has all the warnings of legal opinions and letters to all Members* thrown to the wind and systematically violated the provisions of the Federal Constitutional Court.

So this is the second worst legalizing violation of fundamental rights derided for the death penalty by a legal text full of vague legal terms, the Federal Constitutional Court and its demands. The judges in 2011 but explicitly set that a law to establish the circumstances of enforced treatment exactly, did appoint so specific and clearly defined criteria for the application. There should maybe not be left on experts and of arbitrariness, who has to endure with state blessing injury.Simultaneously, the Bundestag has the conditions to the Federal Court in the so-called "recipe judgment" ** was set in 2006 for each of involuntary treatment, completely ignored. More law uncreate safety so the legislature could hardly have and of course, we call upon all concerned to use this legal uncertainty and to deal with legal means to resist, no matter what the cost. We will soon publish it checked by lawyers or professional tips and advice.

But the coercive psychiatry has won only a Pyrrhic victory, for there is the PatVerfue! here

PatVerfue - the smart living will

July 18, 2012

Forced Psychiatric treatment is irreconcilable with

the Constitution of the United States of America 

Fundamental Human Rights: Self-determination, Liberty, and Human Dignity

Yesterday the German supreme court of the courts ("Bundesgerichtshof") published it's decision that forced treatment for people under custodianship in psychiatry is irreconcilable with the constitution.
This is a huge progress as this verdict on a federal level excludes the possibility to claim that the forced treatment is done in the best interest of the person in question and the decisions of this court are binding for all courts.

This verdict now spells out what the supreme court for constitutional rights ("Bundesverfassungsgericht") had ruled twice last year on 23.3. and 12.10.2011, when it declared two regional state laws legalizing forced treatment in forensic units and on grounds of "dangerousness to others" as being irreconcilable with the constitution and instantly nil - this court ruled that such danger is prevented by the incarceration, so no forced treatment, meaning bodily harm, can be accepted. I reported about this verdict in a message on 29.04.2011.

Up till now lower courts decided differently on how this decision has to be interpreted for people under custodianship, which sometimes is instantly imposed on somebody in order to use these laws to incarcerate and forcibly treat them.
From today on, also the state prosecution has to follow up any attempt to forcibly treat people in psychiatry, as now there is without any doubt forced treatment bodily harm, regardless of whether a person is allegedly "mentally ill" or not.

The court ruled that if at all possible a new law on the federal level would have to be issued. As the next German election is in 2013, the absolute earliest time for such a new law would be 2014.
But of course we are quite hopeful to prevent any new law, because:
Instead of applying the condition "mentally ill", the new fashion of mental health law professionals is to now try to declare someone as "incompetent" and unable to consent to use that as grounds for the deprivation of human and constitutional rights of the person in question.

But the federal law on advance directives issued on 1.9.2009 applies the rules that for all people unable to consent and explicitly for all illnesses and all phases their will decides about their treatment:

a) if it is in a written form from a time when the person was able to consent, this will is binding for the medical professionals and any custodian or a person authorized in an advanced representation agreement.

b) if there is no written advance directive the previous will has to be estimated on the basis of documents and witness statements - not on an estimated "well being" decided by judges and doctors. 

The result is that if a person disagrees to a treatment, a doctor has to provide evidence to a judge that the person in question previously wanted forced treatment and incarceration. This is a patent way to exclude forced medical intervention altogether.

We estimate that the supreme court for constitutional rights understood this paradigm shift by the federal lawmaker and that is the reason why the judges decided after 62 years of our constitution that now all the previous laws on forced psychiatric treatment were unconstitutional. In order to save face they simply did not want to confess that they had ignored the constitutional and human rights of a group of people all the time.

This law on advance directives is also the powerful tool not only to ban forced treatment but also incarceration, via a ban on the medical examinations by a shrink. So we exclude any psychiatric diagnosis with the result that none of the mental health laws are applicable. We use this in our special psychiatric advance directive, the PatVerfue. Please read about it and find the forms we use here: http://www.patverfue.de/en

The "Punk Queen" and performer Nina Hagen is the Patroness of the campaign.

We invite all shrinks of the world to visit German psychiatric wards to inspect how a psychiatry without forced treatment works. This is a great step forward to a non-violent psychiatry everywhere.
Let's celebrate this victory and please confirm to the shrinks in your country that a non-violent medicine is possible and a great goal to aim for. (emphasis mine)

Best regards
rene talbot
(Secretary of IAAPA and member of the board of a national German user and survivor organization)

International Association Against Psychiatric Assault

because Human Rights are indivisible

flag credit 

Lauren Tenney's Testimony at New York State's Olmstead Hearing

"When ever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither is safe."

Edmund Burke

via lauren10e

Published on Aug 24, 2012 by lauren10e

Lauren Tenney testifies at Olmstead hearing 8.22.2012 and makes calls that state-sponsored murder, slavery, and torture must end.

For more information: www.facebook.com/TenneyLauren
www.TheOpalProject.org  www.StopForceNow.org  www.NoIOC.org

via accessiblesociety.org:

Supreme Court Upholds ADA 'Integration Mandate' in Olmstead decision

Washington, DC, June 22, 1999 -- In rejecting the state of Georgia's appeal to enforce institutionalization of individuals with disabilities, the Supreme Court today affirmed the right of individuals with disabilities to live in their community in its 6-3 ruling against the state of Georgia in the case Olmstead v. L.C and E.W.

Under Title II of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, delivering the opinion of the court, "states are required to place persons with mental disabilities in community settings rather than in institutions when the StateÕs treatment professionals have determined that community placement is appropriate, the transfer from institutional care to a less restrictive setting is not opposed by the affected individual, and the placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources available to the State and the needs of others with mental disabilities. "
The 'integration mandate' of the Americans with Disabilities Act requires public agencies to provide services "in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities." The high court upheld that mandate, ruling that Georgia's department of human resources could not segregate two women with mental disabilities in a state psychiatric hospital long after the agency's own treatment professionals had recommended their transfer to community care.
The lower courts ruled the state violated the ADA's "integration mandate" and Georgia appealed, claiming the ruling could lead to the closing of all state hospitals and disruption of state funding of services to people with mental disabilities.

However, the women were supported by a number of states, disability organizations and others, including the U.S. solicitor general, who said "The unjustified segregation of people in institutions, when community placement is appropriate, constitutes a form of discrimination prohibited by Title II [of the ADA]."

Originally, 26 states had signed onto an Amicus Brief in support of Georgia's position. However, an extensive education campaign by the disability rights movement reduced that number to just seven. read more here

Isaac August 2011 

An Example of How Court Orders For Involuntary Commitment Are Obtained

INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT  

AND FORCED PSYCHIATRIC 

DRUGGING IN THE TRIAL  

COURTS: RIGHTS VIOLATIONS  

AS A MATTER OF COURSE 

JAMES B. (JIM) GOTTSTEIN*

via Psychrights.org

'mental illness' is unlike any other illness

Dr. Bejamin Rush's 'Tranquilizer Chair 1811

THE beginning of  STIGMA--occurs when the degree of empathy, true acceptance, hope and love communicated both verbally and non-verbally--by EVERYONE--towards the person with a diagnosis, is absent, contrived or superficial.  Whether one has genuine respect, or has positive regard for another human being (or not) is expressed not only by our speech, but tone of voice, volume, the words that are used, facial expression, posture and gestures made.  People with psychiatric labels, even those who supposedly lack insight, are WAY more aware of any judgement, lack of acceptance, compassion and respect that is transmitted in our voiceless communication than the average 'normal' person; IMHO.  Obviously, people with a psychiatric diagnosis are easily harmed by lack of acceptance and respect; particularly when it is family members and mental health professionals who don't show them loving kindness,   acceptance.  Peter Breggin has said for a therapist to be helpful, the therapist and patient must have a positive regard  for one another.  This is true for all relationships, I believe.


It is not possible to convey any genuine regard and respect for a person, to gain their trust, and develop a therapeutic relationship with a person with a psychiatric diagnosis in a 15 minute 'medication management' appointment.

Why do some psychiatrists seem to have so little regard for the distressed humans they treat?   All that is discussed are the drugs and the effects the drugs may have---there is, in reality no real 'connection' or 'relationship' between the diagnosed and the 'doctor,'  if doling out of prescription drugs is the basis of the relationship.  When communicating by rote, which is what is necessary when doing a 'med check,' it is perfuntory and sterile; although this is considered professional objectivity or distance, it is not necessarily perceived as therapeutic or respectful by the patient.  A psychiatrist's relationship with a patient based on med checks, does not foster trust; at least not in in my own or my son's experience---why would it?  Being a 'mental health' professional of any sort, does not mean that those who come to you do not need you, the professional, to actually earn trust!  The fact is, I have met so many who seem to have the notion that being 'the professional' is all that is required, and seem to believe that having a medical license should be enough to magically inspire a person's trust and garnt unquestioning confidence in their professional authority; it is not.   


If the patient does not believe they are heard, or even feel as if the professional listened to them when they complain about the negative effects of the drugs prescribed, and the complaints voiced are minimized or dismissed altogether, this naturally breeds mistrust.   People with a psychiatric diagnosis who are also labeled with a lack insight are aware when their doctor does this, and when a doctor acts as if they are not important enough to listen to, they will logically assume it is due to a lack of respect for them.  The fact is, every person with a diagnosis of schizophrenia I have ever met was in fact cognizant of an almost universal lack of respect and lack of positive regard of mental health professionals which is apparently considered acceptable among bio-psychiatry devotees in the mental health treatment field; it is definitely pervasive. Apparently, because of the assumption that people with certain diagnoses lack insight, it is considered acceptable practice to minimize or disregard complaints; to not really pay attention to their subjective experiences, or value  the patients' understanding of what "the problem" is.  As a result, the necessity of trying to  develop a therapeutic relationship with them based on mutual respect and positive regard is not even considered or attempted.  It is more than strange to say the least, that people who are diagnoised with conditions that are poorly defined, and not very well understood, in such a negative manner. 

The main purpose the additional label of anosognosia appears to serve is being used as a justification for  treating those lableled with it as if they are less than worthy of being heard, understood, or even listened to, because after all, they don't know what they are talking about, they lack insight...This supposed lack of insight psychiatry has attached is used as an excuse to continue to prescribe the teratogenic drugs which the patients say cause them harm, and some say do not help them at all. It is used to convince their loved ones that they must help to coerce treatment compliance, and must also mimimize and dismiss complaints, i.e. don't listen to or even believe the person with the diagnosis.  The anosognosia label serves to inform the uninformed in the general public.  Once one believes that people who have certain psychiatric diagnoses are also lacking insight, they will then be less likely to listen to a person in distress, accept and/or have positive regard for the person, they will be biased by their belief the person has no insight, and will become more likely to dismiss and disregard the person.  The label is, in a manner of speaking, a gaslighting of an entire group of people; that encourages people to automatically dismiss anything the person says if a patient with the diagnosis says the drugs make them sick, or cause them to feel traumatized, unable to function---because after all, according to the experts those are just the unpleasant but tolerable side effects of necessary medical treatment. No matter what, drugs are to be taken---even by those who are not experiencing an appreciable reduction in symptoms that justifies the inherent serious risks of taking the teratogenic drugs.  It is this way the people that psychiatry claims have the additional diagnostic label of anosognosia, are effectively de-voiced; and are  denied any choice. The patient's perspective is not considered at all, nor are the direct detrimental effects of the drugs, or the detrimental effects of a professional's lack of respect, positive regard, and lack of compassion for the person to whom they are treating.


Psychiatry according to the medical model, does not acknowledge that these drugs do not actually help a significant percentage of those with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, (or other diagnoses!)  It is psychiatry that will not redact fraudulently conducted or reported research from it's professional journals.   The lack of scientific standards and medical ethics is evidence of the lack of respect and positive regard for people diagnosed as mentally ill whom they serve, and who are presumably to benefit from their expert treatment.  This lack of respect emanates from this biomedical attitudinal bias, it is the root cause of, and the very source of the stigma of a psychiatric diagnosis.  It is attached to the psychiatric diagnostic label; it begins when a diagnosis is bestowed as a life sentence: you have a disease with no cure, you just don't know it because you lack insight. Psychiatry has been using it for well over a hundred years: e.g. you have a disease or defect that requires medical treatment with neurotoxic drugs, and electrical shocks, have only replaced psycho-surgery, insulin comas, ice-water baths.  The thing is, the claim has, intentionally or not, always serves to justify treating people as less than fully human, or worthy of ordinary civility, respect, and human compassion;  and it still does. 

The outright falsehoods about symptoms of distress and behavioral difficulties has been taught to society by the 'professionals,' along with the lies about what is and is not known about the drugs themselves.  This is how stigma became entrenched in our society with the distorted 'psycho-education' which psychiatry provided as a public service.  In spite of these falsehoods being recognized and are now 'common knowledge,' the biomedical devotees in psychiatry are arrogant and defensive; unwilling to acknowledge that the source of any mistrust of psychiatry as a profession is a direct result of their own outrageous, entrenched biases and their arrogant, irresponsible, and unethical behavior.   In light of the academic and financial fraud and the Real World Outcomes of their victimized patients, this mistrust is entirely justified.


This is a profession who seemingly does not understand that if a person wishes to be trusted, the individual must be trustworthy; a medical license does not in fact confer trustworthiness; it only authorizes the individual to practice medicine.  If a profession wants to be trusted, ethical and moral standards must be adhered to; mistakes made need to be acknowledged, consequences experienced and corrective action taken.  Being trustworthy does not require perfection.   It requires being willing to admit when you are wrong, and understanding that you are only the patient's partner/assistant/guide/healer with an ethical duty to serve the patient; including being able to admit when you do not know something.  One needs to encourage hope and  independence; or more accurately, a healthy interdependence.  Declarations that a diagnosis is indicitive of  disease accompanied by implied inter-personal superiority and an abusing one's medical authority, are behaviors not worthy of trust. Heavy reliance upon consensus, subjective opinions, anecdotal evidence and one's innate biases serves to discourage and inhibit a patient's chances for healing and achieving s ustained emotional growth; it fosters and unhealthy dependence upon others, and encourages a self-stigmatizing negative sense of self-worth.  It is anathema to the role of a healer.  


It should be obvious, but there can be no trust built or ethical care provided without being honest and forthright.  Telling the truth to your 'patient' and their family about the the diagnosis given, the drugs or any 'treatment' that you recommend, and letting them make an informed choice because you are the 'doctor' and being ethical and honest,  have given them all of the factual based information needed, and suport them if they desire to seek someone else's advice.  It is not appropriate or ethical for you to tell a patient or parent of a child what to do---unless asked.  It is not ethical to mislead them about any drug's potential benefits nor is it ethical to neglect to tell them the inherent risks.  Coercion, manipulation and force are not 'therapeutic,' nor are veiled threats of locking up a patient to gain medication compliance acceptable, it is abuse of power and authority---it is not medical treatment or therapeutic in any sense.   It is a psychiatrist's ethical duty to support and educate a patient; to edify them, encourage them and to treat them with respect, having a kind and positive regard for a patient in order to be helpful.  If a psychiatrist is incapable of doing this, he/she is a doctor who must be stopped; because this type of failure causes injuries which last a lifetime, and often has a lasting, devastating impact for generations...


Psychiatry as a profession will not regain respect or be trusted until: 


1. It is 'standard practice' to respect and protect the Human Rights of those who are labeled 'mentally ill.'


2. It is 'standard practice' to follow the "Medical Ethics Guidelines for Informed Consent" for ALL diagnoses and patients!  No excuses!


3. It is 'standard practice' to tell the truth to patients and about patients to others, when necessary. (police and courts)   Your duty is to the patient, not their parents, or any one else who is distressed by them and wants to confine them!


4. Psychiatry stops disseminating inaccurate information and bio-medical propaganda through advocacy groups' education and information campaigns, and public service activities; people need facts, not fallacies!  It has bred fear, intolerance and discrimination against people given a psychiatric diagnoses; causing further harm and social isolation more than anything else.


5. Stop conducting 'research' and 'clinical trials' the primary purpose of which is not to help, heal or treat patients; but to expand the drug market---if it is not for an ethical, medical or therapeutic purpose, and primarily to benefit the patient, it is not medicine; but marketing!


6.  Conduct and report research ethically, completely and accurately---


7.  Teach students of psychiatry an accurate history of psychiatry and the use of drugs and electroshock.  Unless psychiatry students are taught an accurate history of this 'medical specialty' any changes are doomed to be superficial and cosmetic.  Specifically, psychiatrists should not be taught that coercion, manipulation and social control of others is 'therapeutic treatment!'


It was for the practice of eugenics that these techniques became 'standard practice.'    It was acceptable to mislead and misinform any patient or family member about both the diagnosis and the treatment of 'mental illness,' because based on ignorance and bigotry, 'mental illness' was perceived to be  definitive  evidence of a genetic inferiority which should be extinguished.  Those who were physically or cognitively 'defective' or diagnosed 'mentally ill' were treated as less than human, by psychiatrists.   While there are psychiatrists today who do not and have never held such views, the fact that they were trained in school to use  'standard practices' which were developed by people who very much believed in the inferiority of people diagnosed 'mentally ill.'   Historically, psychiatry like any profession, developed practices based on the what was being done in clinical practice.  In this country from the late 1800s up into the 50s and 60s lobotomy, sterilization, water torture,  insulin coma, electroshock were all considered effective 'treatment' or a 'standard practice' and psychiatry 'treated' those in their care without regard for their dignity or humanity.  It is psychiatry that used these ideas to formulate public policy.  The historical record is shocking for medicine in general, what I find disturbing is the fact that there is so little NEED for those who practice psychiatry to even be taught an accurate history, or even examine exactly what the facts are.   


Some things are indefensible.   I personally find it reprehensible that a profession which has allowed it's members to abuse, coerce, and forcefully "treat/torture" and further stigmatize patients by telling the world they have brain defects; and additionally, they have no idea what is 'good for them' (or they would take their medicine!)  Psychiatry has been instumental in the effort to implement laws and public policies which deny psychiatric patients any human dignity and any hope for a better life.  How can it be in any person's 'best interest' to deny them their Constitutional Rights---which are Human Rights---how is this 'therapeutic' or 'necessary medical treatment' to strip a person of their Human rights with a diagnosis?  It is within the biomedical model the idea that the people who are given a diagnostic label are less than fully human, and don't need their rights protected.


Psychiatry fails to hold members  to any ethical, moral or legal standards, in research, education, and direct clinical care.  APA members inexplicably cling to the delusion that because psychiatry is a 'medical' profession, everything that is done in Standard Practice is actually ethical and necessary to 'medical treatment.'   The fatal outcomes and the traumatized and disabled survivors are evidence that this is not in fact the case.


The fact that many are in fact living in permanent disability with horrible conditions, due to receiving 'psychiatric treatment' which amounted to inhumane traumatizing abuse is cavalierly dismissed as, "Scientology" or  "anti-psychiatry propaganda" yet never respectfully addressed, nor are the dead or disabled even acknowledged---less than humans---need no acknowledgement.    


I am just a mother, who has seen my child, a victim of violent crime; be further traumatized by dangerous drugs in massive doses---drugs not approved for children and every time it was a psychiatrist, not a Scientologist, or antipsychiatrist who prescribed the drugs which did the corporeal  and psychic damage.  Every time it was a psychiatrist who told me the lies and used analogies substituted for facts, it was always a psychiatrist who has questioned why I have no respect for their 'authority.'   I am a mother who willingly takes care of my precious son, who is now a disabled young man; but was once upon a time, my little boy.   I love him beyond measure.  It is he and I who have memories of separation, isolation, degradation, and invalidation which are the traumatic experiences of Standard Practices used by psychiatry.


If psychiatry wants to be respected and trusted, psychiatrists need to do what any and everybody else does. Psychiatrists like anybody and everybody else, must actually earn trust and respect; neither are issued with a diploma or medical license.  Psychiatrists need to act honorably, respect those who seek help, and be accountable.   Telling the truth helps make all these things possible.   Lying is not acceptable--to mislead, or fail to fully inform about either the risks or potential benefits of a prescribed treatment is unethical.  To misinform, mislead, coerce, manipulate, or force harmful drugs or ECT with real risk of permanent disability and sudden or decades early death---after the profession has been misinforming everybody about the actual nature of the diagnoses themselves, and the safety and efficacy of the neurotoxic drugs--is fraud, not medical treatment.  The drugs used to treat the symptoms of distress and emotional trauma, which are often the effects of ignorance, poverty, and all types of abuse and other environmental influences, are no panacea, the psychiatrists who claim to be treating 'diseases' by force if necessary, are committing medical fraud; there is no place for fraud in medical practice.


Dismissive patronizing attitudes, manipulation and coercion as  'standard practices' were developed during the several decades of the psychiatric profession 'medically treating' the 'genetically inferior' by practicing eugenics in State Institutions and social services.  Some of the standard practices, attitudes and 'widely accepted wisdom' prevalent in bio-psychiatry today, originated during the widespread eugenics movement from this era; and were accepted then due to the ignorant notion that subjective observation was evidence of genetic inferiority.  Individuals who were labeled genetically inferior, with a 'brain disease' were considered unworthy of respect, or humane treatment.  People with psychiatric diagnoses led miserable existences in which abuse and torture were considered 'treatment' in State run facilities; and this 'medical treatment' was provided by psychiatrists...


It is this type of treatment that was forced upon my son, I am a witness, and I am a mother who could not rescue my son fast enough.  It took years for me to believe my friends who told me I need to forgive myself.  That it is not my fault, I am not the one who beat him or abused him---in my heart, I failed because my son was harmed so very badly and I couldn't stop it; it still has not stopped...

I am insulted when a person says I should be proud for not walking away from him, for not giving up.   It is the only option I have.   He is my son.  I love him. 

Why are force, coercion, manipulation, and lying to those diagnosed and about those diagnosed to their families, and the general public considered acceptable by the members of the APA?  If the drugs are so safe and effective, why are people being disabled, and dying from illnesses and sudden death as a direct reselt of taking the drugs?    More importantly, if psychiatric drugs are so very safe and effective, why is so much fraud, illegal marketing and dishonesty necessary to practice psychiatric 'medicine'?   Why is it necessary to take children away when a parent exercises their Parental Rights to make decisions for their own flesh and blood?   It is because psychiatrists who are devotees of the biomedical madness believe as one psychiatrist told me, "Parents who objected to medical treatment they would see as at best ill informed and at worst impaired themselves." This is why psychiatrists have felt themselves justified and have purposely mislead, and outright lied to everybody. A belief that anyone who doesn't recognize their superior brains and apparently their psychic abilities; is either simply 'misinformed' or IMPAIRED. This quote is from a psychiatrist who is a 'Human Rights activist.'

If psychiatry is no longer practicing eugenics; and a diagnosis of  'mental illness' is just like any other illness, because the people who are diagnosed are not genetically inferior; and psychiatry is practicing medicine; why is psychiatry still using the same 'standard practices' developed when psychiaty was practicing medicine by implementing eugenics as a Standard of Care?   Just as importantly, why are subterfuge, academic fraud, financial corruption, illegal marketing, and court orders necessary; but Informed Consent for 'treatment' is NOT required, and barely paid lip service?   I do have a biased, but I believe understandable view.  It is based on the ten psychiatrists who all misinformed, and all of them apparently had no ethical qualms about the harm done by their ethical, diagnostic and treatment failure...


How is the modern biomedical model of psychiatric practice different from what the Germans did in the 30s and 40s?   I see no difference myself.   I know I have to this day, never been respected by any of the psychiatrists who have harmed my son, and would not allow me to protect my own child.  I will not stop trying to help my son recover, or stop protecting him as best I can from an under-recognized pathology. 


I call it pathological psychic psychiatry psychosis.  A diagnosis that is characterized by delusions and grandiosity particularly, a belief in one's superior intellect, and one's innate ability to determine what another person can tolerate in terms of physical and psychic trauma.  People with this diagnosis are emotionally capaple sociopaths, with an ability to commit crimes without guilt and use of coercion, seclusion, chemical lobotomies, and give Electrical Shocks to gain behavioral compliance.   These crimes committed by psychiatrists with pathological psychic psychiatry psychosis, are medically necessary.   The people who have pathological psychic psychiatry psychosis can diagnose a disease in anyone's brain by simply looking at them and talking to people who are unhappy about the patient's behavior...Is that a skill or what!  To be able to pull a disease out of a collection of subjective observations, like a magician pulls a rabbit from a hat, that is mighty handy!  I wonder if these psychiatrists demand respect bucause their diagnosis of pathological psychic psychiatry psychosis, allows them to know there is no way in hell they can earn it.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

George Santanyana

"Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names."  

John F. Kennedy

'When a doctor cannot do good, he must be kept from doing harm."  Hippocrates


first posted with the title, 'If Mental Illness is Like Any Other Why Don't We Court Order Exercise?' on July 19, 2011
picture found at  mentalhealthstigma.com

Advocacy "for the mentally ill" is actually advocacy for an agenda

“Prejudices are what fools use for reason.”

Voltaire

DJ Jaffe never misses an opportunity to capitalize on a tragedy which involves a person with a diagnosis of schizophrenia.   Oddly, whether the tragedy involves the person with the diagnosis committing criminal acts or the person being victimized by the criminal acts of others, does not matter. He uses tragic events to further his advocacy platform and spread the seeds of ignorance and to justify bigotry towards those with a diagnosis of schizophrenia.  Using fear and misinformation, he capitalizes on tragic events and advocates for his agenda in a column in the Huffington Post, and in whatever arena or forum he is allowed. In the latest instance of fear based "advocacy for the seriously mentally ill," DJ Jaffe's utilizes the murder of Kelly Thomas in Fullerton California, to further his platform calling for increasing forced psychiatric treatment. Kelly Thomas died after a prolonged violent assault in which six police officers beat and repeatedly shocked him with tasers; a homicide committed by out of control police officers.

The US Constitution grants DJ Jaffe the same Individual Rights that are  granted to all individual American citizens.  The First Amendment protects his right to say whatever the hell he wants, whether based on reality or fantasy.  Jaffe uses his Freedom of Speech to advocate for an agenda that implicitly suggests that people with a psychiatric diagnosis either don't need or don't deserve equal protection of their Individual Rights under the US Constitution; although he denies this is so.  DJ Jaffe denies this is the case because he is unwilling to objectively consider whether one's individual rights are in fact effectively preserved, when individual rights are not defended.  DJ Jaffe's advocacy activities are protected by the US Constitution; and he is entitled to exercise these rights as he sees fit.

DJ Jaffe assumes that because Individual Rights are defined within civil commitment statutes, and the statute itself contains a declaration that  Individual Rights of people Court Ordered to Involuntary Treatment are to be preserved and defended when Court Orders are sought; the declaration written into the law preserves and defends an individual's rights. This is an erroneous assumption.

When we as a society, fail to preserve or defend the individual rights of an entire class of people, predicated on the notion that preservation of the individual rights of people labeled "mentally ill" is secondary to the interests of the rest of society, we diminish ourselves as a society and as individuals; we violate The US Constitution, which clearly states that no law can deprive any individual or group of their Liberty, without Due Process of Law.

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

When the Involuntary Treatment laws are implemented and carried out, the Individual Rights to Substantive and Procedural Due Process are neither protected or defended for those who are the Court Ordered to conform to a treatment protocol which may disable or cause their  sudden or early death.


We as a society have allowed so-called advocates like DJ Jaffe and the "grass roots advocates" like NAMI, to successfully lobby Have we done so in the mistaken belief that these laws help the people who are effectively deprived of their Individual Rights to Substantive and Procedural Due Process of Law? The casual manner in which DJ Jaffe, and other advocates "for the seriously mentally ill" dismiss the negative impact of a legal deprivation of individual rights on the people so deprived, is despicable.


DJ Jaffe and "grass-roots advocates" who claim to be "The Nation's Voice on Mental Illness" do not seem to understand or care that Individual Rights are not protected by words alone. Rights are protected when Rules of Evidence are followed, Proper Notice served upon to the person facing a Court Order for Involuntary Treatment and Proof of Service is filed with the Court, Standard Court Procedures used, and Effective Assistance of Counsel provided.  All of these elements are necessary to effectively preserve an Individual's Rights under the US Constitution. When Court Orders for involuntary psychiatric treatment are sought, these clearly defined individual protections are conspicuously absent.


The people who are detained on psychiatric holds, Court Ordered to Involuntary Treatment, and/or Assisted Outpatient Treatment under Laura's Law, Kendra's Law, or other Involuntary Treatment statutes, are deprived of these individual rights as a matter of course; and as a matter of fact.  We, as a society, have been misinformed by zealous advocates and have blindly accepted it and in effect, we have justified allowing fears, biases and ignorance to be the legal basis used to deprive an entire class of people, "the seriously mentally ill," of their individual rights outlined in the US Constitution. We have legally declared the mentally ill to be different and have passed laws that are obviously discriminatory, and which effectively lower the legal standards applicable in Court proceedings for Involuntary Treatment. How can we as a society claim to be acting in the best interests of an entire class of people by instituting lower legal standards applicable only to them, depriving them of their Individual Rights?

The Declaration of Independence
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
As a society, we validated intolerance and openly discriminate against people with a psychiatric diagnosis Under Color of Law. 


Advocates like DJ Jaffe, are lobbying for strengthening existing laws that are much like the public policies implemented in Germany during WWII:  Identify, segregate, and provide "treatment" to people who are given no choice; depriving the people targeted of the individual protections the rest of society takes for granted.  We are doing this right now in the United States of America, targeting the people who are labeled with a psychiatric diagnosis, depriving those targeted of their Individual Rights to Substantive and Procedural Due Process of Law, under the US Constitution, and Court Ordering psychiatric treatment with teratogenic drugs and/or electric shock which can be disabling and fatal, "for their own good."


Utilizing a human tragedy as a means of furthering a forced treatment agenda to "help the mentally ill" belies having any altruistic intent. Involuntary Treatment Laws are morally reprehensible.  It is as if proponents of these discriminatory laws determined that the words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are not self-evident truths, but are privileges some of us still have... 

"Justice is conscience, not a personal conscience but the conscience of the whole of humanity."
Alexander Solzhenitsyn

"Each time a man stands up for an ideal or acts to improve the lot of others or strikes out against injustice, 
he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope."

Robert Kennedy

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."  C.S. Lewis 

DJ Jaffe's huffpo Kelly Thomas article which inspired me to write this post 

DJ Jaffe's Washington Times article September 16, 2011 well worth your time to read the comments to see how DJ Jaffe is unwilling to answer questions about what he has written.

DJ Jaffe's Tip Sheet written when he was a NAMI Board member and co-author E. Fuller Torrey 

they are both co-founder's of the Treatment Advocacy Center a non-profit established as a function of NAMI in 1998.

from this "tip sheet":

"While AMI/FAMI is not suggesting you do this, the fact is that some families have learned to ‘turn over the furniture’ before calling the police. Many police require individuals with neurobiological disorders to be imminently dangerous before treating the person against their will. If the police see furniture disturbed they will lusually conclude that the person is imminently dangerous.

Read How and why to change involuntary treatment laws in your state.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT WHICH MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION TO THOSE WHO COULD BENEFIT FROM IT.

NAMI/ NYC (formerly AMI/FAMI) does not endorse any medicines or treatments. This info is a public service as part of our efforts to educate and help others affected by these disorders. Do not rely on it. Consult your doctor before making any decisions. NAMI/NYC is a non-profit dedicated to improving the lives of people with neurobiolgical disorders (“NBD”, formerly known as ‘mental’ illness) through education, advocacy, support, and research. If this has been useful to you, PLEASE JOIN US. Send a deductable contribution of $30 (or more) to NAMI/NYC, 432 Park Avenue South, New York, NY 10016 to get on our mailing list or call (212) 684-3AMI. To join chapter outside NYS: 1 800 950 NAMI. Families Helping Families is what NAMI/NYC is all about. Thank you for helping us help others."

Summary:

This "tip sheet" is no longer available on the website I originally found it on; so I am glad I took the liberty of copying it verbatim. I suspect it is no longer on the NAMI site due to how much DJ Jaffe has been confronted about the outrageous advice it offers...He has claimed that he does not endorse lying or tipping over furniture---I, for one, do not believe him. Jaffe in fact put these statements on a widely distributed Tip Sheet meant to advise families how to get help for a family member who is in crisis, making his denial not at all credible. The fact that this document was disseminated by "advocates for the mentally ill" belies an altruistic intent. NAMI functions as a Nation-wide special interest lobby, using propaganda produced by The Treatment Advocacy Center. The fact that NAMI advocates for a very specific agenda--which is not the same thing as advocating for a group of individuals who have psychiatric diagnoses.  
NAMI, the Treatment Advocacy Center, Torrey, and Jaffe, all disseminate the same inaccurate information claiming that schizophrenia is a "brain disease" or "neurobiological disease" as if it is a scientific fact, or medical certainty; and further assert the disease can be "effectively treated" with teratogenic drugs. The claim that schizophrenia is a disease, defect or the newest term, "neuro-biological" disease is not in reality, based upon any empirical evidence, there has been no pathology found to cause schizophrenia to date. All of these "advocates" take their cues from the corrupt drug industry and continue to exaggerate the effectiveness of neuroleptic and other psychiatric drugs; while minimizing and denying altogether the actual brain damage and disability caused by the drugs. Even worse, is their denial of drug-induced adverse events including fatalities---advocates effectively become co-conspirators of a corrupt drug industry in defrauding federally funded medical programs.
The fraud, corruption, and Conflicts of Interest in psychiatric Research, Drug development and marketing, and Medicaid and Medicare being the source of the majority of the ill gotten gains which were obtained in the Pharmaceutical pilfering of the Federal Medicaid and Medicare Programs ARE not even mentioned. NAMI, TAC, Torrey and Jaffe function as pharmaceutical Lobbyists who advocate for a very specific agenda.  It is obvious that if their advocacy was for individuals with a psychiatric diagnosis, these Lobbyists would spend some of their energy towards stopping such criminal conduct from victimizing the people they claim to be advocating for. 


It is also plain that when a person with a diagnosis of schizophrenia is killed as a result of being beat to death by a gang of out of control Police Officers, the death is the fault of the assailants. Blaming the victim or 'the mental health system" is inappropriate. It is done for because is serves as propaganda to support the forced treatment agenda which is the primary focus of their "advocacy."  
The simple truth is that Kelly Thomas is dead because of brutal assault and battery, intentionally inflicted by six Police Officers; each of whom had a duty to protect and serve Kelly Thomas. It is a Hate Crime. The tragic death of Kelly Thomas, a man with a diagnosis of schizophrenia is used by Jaffe, TAC and individual NAMI members as a means to a very specific end: to lobby State legislatures in support for forced psychiatric treatment; including soliciting the endorsement of Kelly's grieving family members, to support Laura's Law. Jaffe and others minimized the fatal actions taken by those whose Duty was to Protect and to Serve Kelly Thomas---whether he was "treatment compliant" or not; homeless or not, and whether he was mentally ill or not. The fact that he was a man diagnosed with schizophrenia, homeless and not on psychiatric drugs or any intoxicating substances when he was killed---should have compelled any advocate who reached out to support the family to stand with them to demand that Kelly Thomas's murderers be brought to justice. It is not advocacy or altruism that compels advocates who choose to blame the victim or "the broken mental health system" for the murder of a mentally ill person. It is self-interest that compels advocates to exploit a brutal murder committed rogue Police Officers of a mentally ill man to further a forced psychiatric treatment agenda.


I am a mother of a young man who is diagnosed with schizophrenia, and I know that when I heard of Kelly's murder; my first thoughts were for his family. My second was that those responsible, would be held accountable. I know from painful experience, crimes committed which victimize people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia are seldom prosecuted, or even investigated. I do not believe that Kelly's lifestyle choices are the issue, nor do I doubt or question his family---It is for me, very simple: Senseless brutality committed by anyone which ends a person's life must compel society to hold the perpetrators responsible. Kelly Thomas and people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia are considered "vulnerable" yet when victimized, are in fact frequently neither protected or defended; far more often, the victims of crime are blamed or ignored altogether. It is as if their vulnerability compels the rest of society to abdicate any responsibility by failing to perform any duty which would protect or defend them---even when they are killed. Otto Zehm was killed by Police Officers in Spokane, Washington and although his death was ruled a homicide, and his brutal assault was caught on video---none of the handful of Police officers who killed him were charged with murder.  This is the 'norm.'


The forced psychiatric treatment agenda, that some 'advocates' focus on, is a biased and discriminatory agenda; not altruistic advocacy in the public interest in service to the mentally ill. People psychiatry labels as mentally ill and society considers to be vulnerable should have the same legal protection those of us who are not mentally ill take for granted. Surely, we can not claim to be a just, civil society if we deprive vulnerable people of their individual rights under color of law, and then claim the deprivation is "for their own good."
 

Portions of this post were first published on August 16, 2011 under the title, Advocacy for who?

It took one minute...

It took one minute has been moved