I am not the jerk whisperer

 

This started out being a response to a comment left on my blog post titled, "Advocacy "for the mentallly ill" is actually advocacy for an agenda" and wound up being too long for a comment, and so I made it a blog post, months later, I rewrote portions of it to more clearly state my views...

It is simply incredible to me that people with a psychiatric diagnosis who are victimized by violent crime are perceived to be somehow at fault for being victimized. 

DJ Jaffe interviewed Carla Jacobs in an apparent attempt to use the murder of Kelly Thomas to further his agenda for forced treatment, and Jaffe states that, "police could always use better training in how to handle dangerous mentally ill individuals, the police are not always the villains."

It is true that police are not always the villains when a person with a psychiatric diagnosis ends up dead as a result of police contact; it is also be true that police officers may need more training to effectively interact with people with psychiatric diagnoses safely.  It shows extremely poor judgement on Jaffe's part to make these statements in relationship to Kelly Thomas' brutal murder at the hands of rogue police officers in Fullerton, California.  It seems that DJ Jaffe is attempting to minimize the horrific nature of the behavior of the police officers involved in Kelly Thomas' murder. Jaffe's interviewee, Carla Jacobs, insults one's intelligence when stating, "When it comes to treating people with the most serious mental illnesses, the police will react where California's mental health system won't." Jacob's statement implies that the brutal attack on Kelly Thomas is in some way understandable; since he was not being drugged!

The murder of Kelly Thomas is neither understandable, nor justifiable.  I find these two advocates statements minimizing and excusing  felonious conduct of police officers who victimized Kelly Thomas incomprehensible.  How can  advocacy "for the seriously mentally ill" include minimizing homicide committed by men who had sworn an oath to perform a legal duty with honor and integrity, i.e. to protect and to serve Kelly Thomas?

People who claim to be advocating for those with a psychiatric diagnosis who fail to defend the mentally ill who are victimized and who exploit tragic events to further an  agenda, are not so much advocating for "the mentally ill," as they are lobbying for a special interest agenda; specifically, an agenda to expand the number of people who are forced into psychiatric treatment. The appropriate word which describes a person who advocates for a narrow agenda, including exploiting tragic events to further the agenda, is not "advocate;" the appropriate word is lobbyist.  DJ Jaffe and Carla Jacobs are Special Interest Lobbyists who promote forced psychiatric treatment as a public policy. Jaffe and Jacobs lobby for legislation to legally mandate forced treatment on people regardless of the adverse effects or actual benefit to the individual.

Most of the training provided to police in this country is developed by Treatment Advocacy Center, the 'research' arm of NAMI, and provided by NAMI affiliates.  If it is true that police need more or different training; it is likely that who is entrusted with developing and providing the training may also need to be reconsidered.  There is a definite bias in the training provided to Law Enforcement due to an inherent Conflict of Interest: the training serves to support, and market the forced treatment agenda; the biased "information" used in the training is meant to justify forced psychiatric treatment. To exploit Kelly Thomas's murder as a means of furthering a biased forced treatment agenda dishonors his memory. I wonder, do advocates like Jaffe and Jacobs have any ability to focus solely on the needs of the people they advocate for?  Where is the outrage for people who are victimized because of their psychiatric diagnosis?  Where is the advocacy for "the seriously mentally ill" when Justice is needed for those who are victimized? Where is the desire to protect and defend the mentally ill from perpetrators who victimize them?  Nowhere to be found...   

"AOT does not require anyone to take dangerous chemicals. The only required service is case management services. Others are optional and are negotiated by patient, his lawyer, and the court. Interestin­gly, consumers in AOT retroactiv­ely overwhelmi­ngly support it;" according to DJ Jaffe.

DJ Jaffe is apparently unaware of the glaring contradictions in his statement.  The fact that people in AOT who object to taking what are dangerous drugs--which may or may not "help" them--need to have a lawyer to help them 'negotiate' with the Court,--makes it obvious that this is not a "medical diagnosis" being treated so much as it is a psychiatric diagnosis being adjudicated, and a legal sentence applied.  I am sick of people like Jaffe claiming that "Anosognosi­a (not being aware you are ill) is very common."  This diagnostic label is assigned to anyone who is not "treatment compliant;" it is a label used to denigrate, malign and slander people who have had their rights diminished due to a legal determination under a guise of  "medical necessity." In this respect, a Court determines that a person is guilty of having a "mental illness," then sentences them to psychiatric treatment which may ultimately disable and kill them.  

I am not saying that people who have been labeled with a psychiatric diagnosis can't have a lack of insight. I am saying that it is simply ludicrous to imply that the only reason people don't want to take neuroleptic and other psychotropic drugs is due to a lack insight; because they "just don't know what's good for them!"  The drugs have serious negative effects, and serious risks; so pretending that people in distress don't know what an adverse effect feels like, or know what is tolerable to them; adds insult to injury. It is apparent to me that even when in distress, a person in an extreme state can discern if they are being respected or invalidated by the manner in which they are being treated. A patient being de-voiced and being deprived of choice in this way is not due to the patient's lack of insight, it is a ploy which serves to prevent patients from being believed or even heard when they refute the forced treatment lobbyists claim that forced treatement is effective and in the best interests of people adjudicated as mentally ill. Advocates and professionals who are devotees to the bio-disease paradigm justify this use of force by claiming that virtually anyone who refuses to comply with psychiatric diagnosis and treament has anosognosia. It is a specious claim to make. All things considered, it is despicable that it is acceptable to malign and slander people; to in effect, deprive them of a means to defend and advocate for themselves by ensuring others don't listen to them because "the seriously mentally ill lack insight and don't know what's good for them." 

Some just may not be amenable to being coerced and manipulated; some may be sick of being misled and outright lied to about the diagnoses they are given and the drugs forced upon them purportedly to "medically treat" psychiatric diagnoses.  As DJ Jaffe knows, the drugs are, "dangerous chemicals," and are part and parcel to AOT. Some do not want to experience the negative effects of the drugs, the drugs can be agents of trauma for a statistically significant percentage of people who take them. Some are unwilling to subject themselves to the dishonesty: i.e. the manipulative, coercive and patriarchal manner that public mental health services are provided.  I would be willing to bet that anosognosia is rarely the reason a person refuses 'treatment.' This claim is offered in an attempt to rationalize and justify what is an unethical abuse of power and authority of mental health professionals and self proclaimed "patient advocates" who lack not only insight, but ethical integrity as well.

It is likely that the fraud, i.e. misinformation used to coerce treatment compliance, and the disrespectful manner in which people with a psychiatric diagnosis are treated may have something to do with the lack of trust many have for the mental health treatment system and for the professionals who adhere to the bio-disease paradigm of mental health "treatment."  The subterfuge and the disrespectful treatment is well-known and incredibly, socially accepted--and this is one reason some people do not "seek treatment," and/or become "non-compliant." It is also why some are determined to avoid "mental health treatment" like the plague. It is not a lack of insight on a non-compliant patient's part, given the reality of the subjective nature of psychiatric diagnoses, and the disabling and fatal risks of the teratogenic drugs used to treat psychiatric diagnoses, it is despicable to state the only reason that a person would avoid taking the drugs is because they lack insight. It is mental health professionals and so-called advocates that lack insight, since they seem to have decided to be willfully blind to the well-documented risks and seem to believe it's acceptable to medically neglect their patients with iatrogenic injuries. Drugs used in "standard psychiatric treatment" can and do benefit some people; they are not "effective treatment" in a therapeutic or healing sense biologically; while they do alter biological processes, they do not correct an identified dysfunction, or cure an identified disease. Whether a person treated with the drugs experiences positive benefits which justify the serious risks is not the criteria which determines whether or not a particular drug or combination of drugs is successful. In bio-psychiatry, "successful treatment" is synonymous with "treatment compliance," so the real world outcome for the patient is and never has been a determinant of what is considered successful treatment.

The fact that "treatment compliance" is the primary goal of "successful treatment;" rather that the real world outcome for the patient, is a clear indication that this "medical treatment" is not to primarily serve a patient's "best interest;" it is primarily used to control the patient. "Psychoeducation" is used to limit a patient's autonomy and restrict their ability to advocate for themselves; in effect, people are (de)VOICED; not "allowed" to make treatment decisions for themselves. Complaints of harm are dismissed; or attributed to the proverbial "tolerable side effects." Bio-psychiatry, i.e. psychopharmacology first, foremost for life; is not an ethical standard of medical care. Ethical medical care serves the individual patient's "best interest;" not the interests of the people who seek to control a patient. In the ethical practice of medicine, the actual effects of the medical treatment on a particular patient, i.e. the real world medical condition/outcome and the patients's perspective would be used to determine whether a person is "successfully treated."

The patient's perspective is never irrelevant, and should never be minimized or dismissed. No one but the patient can ultimately determine what adverse effects are "tolerable." It is inconceivable that anyone else can determine what a patient can and cannot tolerate; the need for the patient's perspective is implicit.  It is an abuse of power and authority to minimize or dismiss the patient's perspective; a disrespect that evinces a profound lack of regard, compassion and respect for a patient. Treatment that doesn't cure shouldn't have significant risks for causing a patient harm!

photo from FB~ Troublemakers
this post was originally published October 10, 2011 and appears here with minor alterations...

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?

Equal Protection: Individual Rights Procedural Due Process of Law

E. Fuller Torrey, DJ Jaffe's mentor and Treatment Advocacy Center co-founder, is funded by a wealthy businessman, Ted Stanley through the Stanley Family Foundation.  Mr. Stanley has spent well over $300 million dollars in twenty-one years funding E. Fuller Torrey's forced treatment agenda and "research" which is more accurately described as biased, hateful propaganda; and it is spread the same way; insidiously, using deception, manipulation and fear.

The architects of psychiatry's (psychopharmacology) Brave New World have used what were once family run advocacy groups to spread the propaganda; they have enlisted the groups members as unpaid lobbyists; perverting the purpose of the Courts, by ignoring Standard Court Procedures. Legislation passed to Court Order 'special treatment' for those who are diagnosed as mentally ill; compelling Police to work as Mental Health treatment compliance officers, using their authority to become social control agents for Psychiatry.

As the Director of the Treatment Advocacy Center and the Stanley Medical Research Institute,  Edwin Fuller Torrey, NAMI's 'schizophrenia expert,' consultant and resident Hero Psychiatrist, Torrey has helped craft a forced treatment public policy and the agenda to implement it Nationwide.  Led by  Torrey and funded by The Stanley Family Foundation and BigPharma, who also crafts legislation, directs lobbying efforts, and acts as advisers to National Alliance on Mental Illness. NAMI claims to be a 'grassroots' advocaes for those who have "mental illness;" however, NAMI has been pushing across the Nation a forced treatment agenda, which belies it's claim to being "grassroots" advocates, and calls into question whether it functions as advocates for "the seriously mentally ill," or for a forced treament agenda.

What I find more than a little strange is the rise of E. Fuller Torrey as an expert on schizphrenia and a proponent of forced treatment.  He appears to be a man who jumped on a money train when the opportunity arose.  The money train was powered by the generosity of Ted Stanley and elevated  Torrey onto a pedestal as the leader of biopsychiatry's forced treatment agenda, funding him as the "founder" of The Stanley Medical Research Institute in 1989 and the Treatment Advocacy Center in 1998. Inexplicably, Torrey was also gifted with an adjunct faculty appointment at George Mason University; even more disturbing: he was made a Professor at the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences. 

This guy is no scientist, his track record in schizophrenia research speaks of an affinity for ideas which have borne little to no fruit.  Torrey's lack of ethical integrity is renown, he has been quoted numerous times advocating for family and friends of people who are diagnosed as mentally ill to lie to the Police and to submit perjured testimony to obtain Court Orders.  This so-called expert "advocate for the seriously mentally ill' recommends illegally stripping people of their Liberty, and violating people's rights "for their own good;" in effect, he is advocating ignoring the Ethical Guidelines for Informed Consent. 

Psychiatrists and mental health treatment providers coerce and lie to patients, and "support" the family by encouraging them to  develop crisis plans for mental health emergencies that put these spurious suggestions in writing.  Torrey and his protege, DJ Jaffe, collaborated on a Tip Sheet that suggests family members use false statements, exaggerate events and falsely testify in Court. it goes so far as to say some families have learned to tip over furniture to bolster the false claims.  Torrey's goal is obviously to effectively deprive people of their liberty, their human rights, if that costs them their life, it's a "natural death." This is the New World advocacy "for the seriously mentally ill."

Torrey utilizes TAC, his relationship with NAMI, and his bought and paid for Academic posts as a platform to peddle misinformation, fuel bigotry towards the "mentally ill" while advocating for discriminatory treatment of the very people proclaims himself to be an advocate for. As Kenneth S. Lynn, a history professor of Johns Hopkins opined in review of Torrey's book, "The Roots of Treason: Ezra Pound and the Secret of St. Elizabeths" in Commentary Magazine, "Although by all accounts he is an efficient administrator, his achievements as a scientist are dim to the point of invisibility."

In "The Death of Psychiatry" Fuller states, "Diseases are something we have behavior is something we do."  He further asserts, "None of the conditions we call mental 'diseases' have any of the structural or functional changes in the brain...this is true of conditions with 'explosive personality' and 'paranoid personality,' but also the behavior we categorize as schizophrenia."  Most significantly, Torrey says that warehousing the mentally ill to protect society is not necessary; because the number who are "dangerous is infinitesimal."

In this book, Torrey quotes Dr. Thomas Szasz liberally and with apparent admiration; Torrey even sent an autographed copy to Dr. Szasz as a gift.  Dr. Szasz wrote a critique of E. Fuller Torrey; asking a very important question, "If Torrey is as deceitful and disrespectful of the truth in his role as physician to the poor, homeless people as he says he is, why should we assume he is any more honest in his role as brain scientist?"  Read Thomas Szasz's Critique:

The  mis-treatment of the "seriously mentally ill" is a historical as well as a current day blight on humanity.  At the same time that NAMI lobbied for Involuntary Commitment Laws in Washington State, and across the country; there has been a Mental Health Transformation being implemented that is  federally funded.  The Transformation and NAMI's agenda are contradictory.  How is it possible for an advocacy group to advocate those with psychiatric diagnoses to be fully included in all aspects of mental health service planning, policy, and service provision, yet be lobbying for legislation that will deprive the same group of people of Equal Protection under the law?

Why would we as a society want to Court Order people to "treatment" that "effectively "treats" only 26% of adults and 12% of children and adolescents with symptoms of psychosis?   The drugs used are teratogenic, expensive, cause several illnesses, leading to increased heath care costs, can be disabling, can diminish quality of life, and can be fatal used as directed?  These are not "safe" medications; but they are dangerous drugs.  As such, they should not be widely prescribed, or used on everybody with a diagnosis.  Since the majority of people do not actually benefit from taking the drugs and the drugs have grave risks why is it that we are forcing people to take them based on the advice of an unethical 'psycho' pharmacologist, pseuo-researcher bigot?

Here in Washington State, NAMI members who are "Peer consumer leaders" or family members of are on committees for charged with transforming the public mental health system into a system that provides client-driven mental health care.  The same people advocate for NAMI's forced treatment agenda, and use NAMI National materials and advisers.  As far as I can tell from committee member lists, virtually every "community" member, whether a "consumer" or a family member, on every committee for the Mental Health Transformation here in Washington State is a member of NAMI...NAMI's forced treatment agenda is not consistent with full inclusion, or client directed mental health services.  Indeed, they are polar opposites.  The Federal Mental Health Transformation mandates that the "seriously mentally ill" and their families be involved in the planning, implementation and provision of care.  That every aspect of mental health treatment and it's reform be led by those who have in the past or are receiving mental health services.  It is obvious to me that ONLY NAMI members and "treatment compliant" mental health clients are brought to the table and allowed to participate.

Special interest groups, like NAMI, and other "stake holders," from the drug industry, government, academia, psychiatry and family advocacy need to respect that Nothing About Us Without Us is not just a slogan; and that the bio-psychiatric paradigm is NOT the only choice, which should be available.  It is largely due to the dominance of this incomplete, and ineffective paradigm of care that the Mental Health System is ineffectively "treating" so many.

All of us need to respect the Law of the Land; and recognize that Equal Protection Under the Law, does not mean everybody except those who need care, protection and/or assistance because they are experiencing difficulties or are labeled as mentally ill!  It seems to me that we as a society should be more protective of those who need our assistance, not less!   How can we pretend to "advocate for them" while failing to protect them from abuse of psychiatrists, or governmental authority and power?  There is no advocacy, or therapeutic value evident in a "medical treatment" program which is Legislated without a recognition of and plan for the potential harm that can and will be done when inappropriately implemented.

We, as a society, have a duty to those who have been determined by psychiatrists based on a subjective opinion to be in need of psychiatric treatment by Force of Law, who obtain Court Orders to use teratogenic drugs to Involuntarily 'treat' a person.  Individual Rights to Substantive, Procedural Due Process of Law, are Constitutional Rights; e.g. Human Rights.  People who have never been given a  psychiatric diagnosis, often take these rights for granted.  A just society recognizes that Equal Protection under the Law means exactly that.  It is discrimination to effectively Under Color of Law to deprive an entire class of people of their Individual Rights due to a psychiatric diagnosis and sentence them to what could literally be a death sentence.  If that isn't a STIGMA, I don't know what the hell is!  No one can lawfully be deprived of their Liberty without their Individual Rights to Procedural Due Process of Law being protected and defended, except if they have been given a psychiatric diagnosis, is not what the Constitution says.

Advocates like Torrey, must come to the realization that history does not record good intentions; history records events, and an individual's actions.  Human beings, even those who are distressed who have a psychiatric diagnosis, can usually tell the difference between benevolent assistance and kind, positive regard and coercion and manipulatoin.

History records actual events; actual human behaviors.  The behavior of advocates who rely on using fear, subterfuge, coercion and manipulation to gain conformity and compliance will not be remembered for the good intentions used to justify the inhumane treatment of vulnerable people.  All of us will be remembered for what we do, and the effects our behavior had on others.  It is the content of our character, and the impact our actions had on others in our family and in our community. Our individual intentions and the motives which compel our behavior, are entirely subjective, open to interpretation; motive and intent are not concrete; actual events and observable behaviors are.


Psychiatric Fraud and Force: A Critique of E. Fuller Torrey
The Journal of Humanistic Psychology Vol. 44 No. 4 (2004)  416-430

This post has been rewritten, first published 12-15-2010 with a different title. 

Advocacy Program or Progrom?

:
The Deputy Prosecutor and the psychiatrist involved in the violation of my son in late July and early August of 2010 have both lost their jobs... the psych unit is closing...

I was asked by someone I respect very much, if I was certain I did not fill out a court document when I took my son to the crisis center at the end of July. My response was I know absolutely for certain that I did not. I shared that over the years I have filled out and filed court documents.

There is no way in hell I would have filled out a statement in support of my son's Constitutional Rights being diminished or violated! The law that allows for this kind of human rights violation is something that I have been living in fear of. I am a mother, and a person who was given one of the labels that is often used as an excuse to violate people's human rights; my son has already endured the most horrendous ongoing violations of his human dignity and human rights for most of his life. It is an added insult to the injustice that Designated Mental Health Professional, Nancy Sherman perpetrated. She maligned and slandered both my son and myself in Court proceedings. What she did is claim that I asked her to lock up my son. People who know what my son's childhood was like, know that I fought for almost 2 years to rescue him from CSTC, where he had been used in drug trials, know that we as a family endured horrifying experiences which were traumatic in the extreme for all of us. Isaac was tortured and disabled by psychiatric treatment. FYI There is no way in hell I would trust a Mental health Professional or a State authority to take care of a dead animal-- and I would die and go to hell before I trusted any of them to take care of my son. There is no way I could.

In her testimony, under penalty of perjury, she alleges that Isaac threw a television. The TV was not smashed, or even damaged. My son is seriously impaired from massive amounts of neuroleptic drugs he was forced to take. He was told that if he didn't take them he would never get to leave and go home. A kid in a locked facility who wanted to go home, he took the drugs. One of the adverse effects and the iatrogeinic harm he experienced causes him to lose his balance easily. What Sherman described, is not something Isaac is physically capable of doing.

Unfortunately, this lie is repeated by Dr. Jeffrey Jennings, who is, as the petition he filed instructs: only to state facts he knows "first hand," to be true; as testimony. Dr. Jennings commits Perjury in his petition. He did not speak to me, he had no "first hand" knowledge of the events that occurred for which Isaac went to the crisis center. He did not in the time he "treated" my son speak to my son's primary physician, his psychiatrist, his brother, or his mother. As a physician, how can he believe he actually has any ethical integrity? I say this because the reason cited for the court order's necessity, "To protect the integrity of the Medical Profession" I asked Isaac if he remembered Dr. Jennings, he said, "he wanted to talk to me but I was tired and asked him to leave me alone, but he kept trying to talk to me. Mom, I asked him 4 times to leave me alone, then I screamed, get the fuck out of my room." Well, who wouldn't want their wishes respected in the hospital? The patient rights list given to Isaac upon admission gave him the right to tell Jennings to leave him alone...Jennings simply chose not to respect those rights.

This event is recorded by Jeffrey Jennings in Isaac's hospital chart as, Isaac became agitated and needed to be medicated. Jennings doubled the dose of a benzodiazepine that Isaac had to take and that he had been tapered totally off, due to "cardiac risk," and increased a neuroleptic drug by 250 mg and Jennings made it a part of the Court Order which was in effect for six months. The drugs have caused my son iatrogenic illness and iatrogenic neurological impairments. The neuroleptic drug is, according to it's manufacturer, is only to be increased by 50 mg at a time, no more frequently than twice a week to minimize risk of death among other things. My son has yet to recover from this psychiatrist's assault. Apparently, Jennings had never heard of the Hippocratic Oath.

I am a mother, it is my duty to protect my son from harm. I am his caretaker I make sure he takes what is prescribed, and he has never refused to take what is prescribed. It is because the drugs have caused profound iatrogenic injuries that disabled Isaac, that he needs assistance in his daily life. I'm gratful he trusts me, and that he listens when I tell him he can't just stop taking them; he's humble and knows it's ok to need help. He believes me when I tell him that there are people who are trustworthy. But, believing what your mom says, and knowing something for yourself as a young man, is not at all the same thing. I hope he doesn't end up thinking I lied about there being people who are trustworthy.

The two thugs who are mental health "professionals" must be members of NAMI, an organization that purports to be a "grassroots" advocacy movement, it refers to itself as, "The Nation's voice on mental illness." It was one of NAMI's affiliates that disseminated a "Tip Sheet" written by D.J. Jaffe and E. Fuller Torrey, the so-called co-founders of The Treatment Advocacy Center, "TAC" D. J. Jaffe's Tip Sheet appears to be advising people to exaggerateto syptoms and behaviors, to tip over furniture when attempting to have have a family member committed. This, "Tip Sheet" was developed to advise family members who are calling on Law Enforcement to assist them. In effect, it advises people to file false police reports, which is a crime. More than once E. Fuller Torrey, has been quoted in the media and in NAMI literature as saying it is necessary to lie; and advises family members in NAMI to do so in order to have a person committed. It is criminal as a matter of fact.

Has anybody else noticed a pattern in this yet? This is all smoke and mirrors. The drugs are falsely billed as effective and necessary medical treatment for treating "brain diseases" without any disease actually being identified. The drugs can in fact cause iatrogenic diseases, particularly when used in high doses and for long periods. A group of people who are purportedly advocating for me and my son; and for everybody who has ever had or who may be suspected of having a psychaitric diagnosis. The grassroots advocates do not speak for me. No one can pretend to speak for me with a voice that advocates treating any human being who is creatively maladjusted, a trauma survivor, with neurodiverse, unique human qualities as if they are unworthy of their Human Rights--My son has Human rights that so-called advocates and mental health providers have no interest in. No interest in what the truth is, what happened to him, or what it's done to him physically or emotionally. The self-appointed grassroots advocates, The Voice on "mental illness" has no interest in helping the people who are harmed by the forced treatment that NAMI endorses; so NAMI is not in fact qualified to speak for, let alone be THE VOICE for my son whom they have helped to de-voice by refusing to acknowledge his existence or the profound iatrogenic injuries he sustained as a victim of the progrom of forced treatment that NAMI advocates for. NAMI advocates for an agenda regardless of it's detrimental effect on the people NAMI claims to be advocating for.

As advocates, with a government, pharma, and private foundation funded pharma fear-based forced treatment agenda marketing machine, NAMI marched it's grassroots progrom of advocacy "for the seriously mentally ill" across the nation. The people who are targeted for "special treatment" are just like everybody else, advocates say. The methods, the tools this progrom uses are distortortion of current and historical events, feeding individual fears, using innuendo, gossip, and traumatic events to polarize groups of people to fuel innate ignorance and biases to promate bigotry and create an US and THEM dichotomy. These are the building blocks and the tools of propaganda. These advocates are using a progrom that made man's inhumanity to man public policy, and then the law in Germany leading up to WWII. The neuroleptic drugs used for "necessary medical treatment" of schizophrenia in use since the mid fifties have killed far more individuals than the Third Reich did. We just don't bother to count the bodies; victims who were stripped of their human dignity in life, don't count once they're dead...because drug induced death is totally "natural."

Here, we have grassroots advocates "for the seriously mentally ill" enlisting the general public, law enforcement, medical professionals, schools, churches and government agencies help further the goal of the treatment advocacy agenda: To identify every human being who "needs special treatment" whether they, or anyone who knows them knows it or not...This special treatment progrom, requires family and friends to help advocates by referring family, neighbors, and friends, for special treatment "for their own good" because they just don't know what's good for them at all! NAMI has endorsed and lobbied for the legislation that legally mandates a diminished social and political status and stripping the Human Rights that the advocates take for granted, from the people they advocate for---but of course you know, "it's for their own good" we have to do it, to protect the public is the fear-based mantra used to justify torture, and trauma as medical treatment, essentially Crimes Against Humanity.

This purposeful overt victimiztion of people based on subjective opinions, errors of attribution, distortions of known facts and histrical events, is blatant bullying, systematic discrimination and calling it medical treatment does not change the nature of what is being done, and it certainly does not ameliorate the harm done. People being drugged with terotogenic drugs and given electric shock treatments will cause a statistically significant percentage to die within the first year; and will disable and kill a statistically significant percentage of the people taking the drugs on an ongoing basis either willingly or under court order, regardless of age or psychiatric diagnosis.

If this progrom was for the primary benefit of the mentally ill; there would at least be a show of civility, if not actual compassion for the people who have been and are being harmed and the family members who mourn the loss of loved ones who are killed. Indeed, it seems that assistance being offered and preventative measures would be taken to avoid further harm, and efforts made to ammeliorate the harm that's already been done...NAMI and no other "patient advocacy" group does anything like that...It seems that it is more important when advocating for "special treatment" that any adverse and fatal effects of the treatment being advocated for are ignored; because it would divert attention away from the "benefits" of the special treatment! When you advocate for a progrom to Court Order people to take neuro-toxic drugs and/or get electric shock treatments, it's important to focus on the safety and effectiveness of the special treatment...

The adverse effects caused by neuroleptic drugs and electic shock treatment are direct effects; i.e. they are the mechanism of "how the special tratment works." Calling these direct adverse effects "side-effects," is analogous to saying decomposition a "side-effect" of death.

Neurleptics increase mortality from heat attack, heat stroke and sudden brain death.

First published October 21, 2010
update Sept. 13, 2011

Fictional Facts for Advocates

The New York State Legislature held a Joint Budget Hearing on "Mental Hygiene" on March 2, 2011. 

Prior to the hearings, Daniel Hazen and Lauren Tenney asked D.J. Jaffe if he would be open to a public debate. 

They jury is still out. 

Lauren Tenney, Daniel Hazen, and Harvey Rosenthal stood in silent protest during D.J. Jaffe's testimony to the legislature, which included promoting programs of force, including Involuntary Outpatient Torture, also known out "Assisted Outpatient Treatment" carried out through Kendra's Law. 

Video: T.J. Calcagno & Lauren Tenney


The Huffington Post's bio for DJ Jaffe says:


"DJ Jaffe is the founder of Mental Illness Policy Org http://mentalillnesspolicy.org which provides the media and public officials with unbiased information about "serious" mental illness from a pro-treatment perspective. It covers issues of violence, deinstitutionalization, not guilty by reason of insanity, assisted outpatient treatment, involuntary commitment, involuntary treatment and other issues.," emphasis mine

What Is It?

DJ Jaffe never misses an opportunity to stir the forced treatment advocates up. He latest post about Sharon Stone's stalker is typical of his "reporting" on "serious mental illness." This guy's byline used to be "advocate for the seriously mentally ill;" now it's, "Founder, mentalillnesspolicy.org." The Mental Illness Policy Org. website states it is an effort to provide, 'unbiased' information for policymakers and the media." Apparently DJ does not have an understanding of what "unbiased information" is. DJ's organization uses the same biased information other pseudo-advocates who are advocates for forced treatment, not necessarily the people who will be subjected to it. E. Fuller Torrey with the Treatment Advocacy Center, and Pete Earley, a "Minds on the Edge" participant, use the same misinformation in their 'advocacy.'

DJ's claims to be 'reporter' and an 'advocate for the serious mentally ill' would be laughable, if his fear mongering and discriminatory advocacy were not part of the problem; DJ's work is NOT helpful to anyone who has been diagnosed as 'seriously mentally ill' and wants to recover.  DJ's advocacy relies on biased research, information developed in collusion with the pharmaceutical industry; basically, propaganda.  The laws for Involuntary Treatment and "Assisted" or "Assertive" outpatient "treatment" are  based on misinformation and bigotry, rely on coercive, dishonest manipulative tactics, e.g. social control strategies; to ensure "treatment compliance."  The 'treatments' cause iatrogenic illnesses, disability and early death, and have harmed hundreds of thousands of patients.  Using social control strategies in standard clinical practice while calling these methods 'assertive' or 'treatment protocols' or 'practice parameters' does not change the nature of what is being done.  Calling it medical treatment  does mean that coercion is less unethical, and it sure as hell doesn't make neuroleptic drugs any safer or  effective medical treatment.  How could anyone believe coercion, Court Orders, and neurotoxins are helpful?  How could causing iatrogenic illnesses, cognitive impairment, and early death be an  acceptable outcome of 'safe and effective medical treatment'?

Laws for involuntary commitment or "assisted" outpatient treatment when implemented, more often than not,  violate the targeted individual's civil liberties.  It is common for lawyers appointed to mount absolutely no defense for the mentally ill individuals whom they are paid to defend.  As a result, Constitutional Rights to Procedural Due Process of Law are effectively denied the people involuntary treatment orders target, "the seriously mentally ill" DJ claims to be advocating for.

The fact that neuroleptics are not "antipsychotic" and do not work for a significant percentage of individuals who are diagnosed with schizophrenia, does not seem to matter to DJ Jaffe and his fellow pseudo-advocates.  It also seems to not be worth mentioning the fact that those for whom neuroleptics do work, are at risk of developing iatrogenic illnesses, due to the teratogenic effects of the drugs.  The illnesses, which can be disabling, cause sudden death, and also shorten a person's  life span by 25 to 30 years! Recently, it was finally reported in the mainstream press that neuroleptics SHRINK BRAIN tissue and the amount of shrinkage is correlated with dosage and length of "treatment."   DJ claims his organization and it's website will provide "unbiased" information, since there is NO mention of these facts, or in his "policy development;" and the fact that DJ refuses to respond to valid criticism of his strategies and "advocacy," it is obvious that "unbiased" is not a term that is understood by the man.   I really do not think it is because his "Mental Illness Policy Org" website is in the "beta" stage of development that his "unbiased" presentation of information does not include the above pertinent information.

My experience over the last several months reading this guys column, and his ignorant responses to the comments made by myself and others; when confronted this pseudo-advocate waffles and does not stand behind his own statements.  This "advocate" and his "Mental Illness Policy Org." is nothing but an effort to further the forced treatment agenda, regardless of efficacy, outcome, social or financial cost.  DJ Jaffee is not an advocate for people with a diagnosis of mental illness, he is an advocate for an agenda that robs these people of their Human Rights and compels them to have psychiatric treatment forced upon them regardless of the consequences.

Jaffe claiming to be an "advocate" for anyone is laughable.  He is unable to support or defend his own mental illness policies about how to help "the seriously mentally ill" when thoughtfully challenged by people who question his agenda.  Given his inability to defend his position, or even answer a simple question in person, begs the question, how in the hell did this guy come to be published in any publication?  How can he be taken seriously, when he is inarticulate, uninformed and wholly incapable of supporting or defending his own argument?   Did his hero psychiatrist, E. Fuller Torrey get the uber-rich Stanley Family to bankroll his protege and lead sycophant?

This video made by Lauren Tenney in Albany, NY at the Joint Budget hearing on "Mental Hygiene" held on March 2, 2011 shows a man who is inarticulate, and seemingly incapable of conversation, and at a total loss to answer a question with any clarity.   All due respect, how can he speak with any authority, or "advocate" for anyone else, let alone a group of people, if he is unable to respond or, defend, or validate his own opinions about public policy with something more substantial than restating his opinion or evading questions altogether?

Thank you Lauren for adding the sub-titles and for making this video available.

DJ Jaffee is not interested in hearing from or publicizing the opinions of those who were once labeled "seriously mentally ill," but who now consider themselves "survivors of psychiatry."

How can Mental Health practitioners and psychiatrists fail to realize and understand the importance of a supportive, positive, therapeutic relationship that is most needed by a person seeking help for psychosis or any other psychiatric symptom?  This idea is not some newfangled liberal agenda developed to bring psychiatry down.   A therapeutic relationship can only be built on a foundation of  positive regard, mutual respect, and trust.  A therapeutic, meaningful relationship is the strongest determinant of a positive outcome, for "the seriously mentally ill."   It is impossible for such a relationship to develop when the patient is not listened to, is not validated and is otherwise effectively excluded from meaningful participation in treatment decisions.  Effectively, this sends the message that once labeled by psychiatry, a person is considered unable to participate in planning one's treatment, and determining the course of one's own life.

Almost universally, survivors report that being encouraged, emotionally supported, and offered real hope that recovery is not only possible, but expected; that having at least one person who believed in them, and their ability to transcend their madness that was preeminent, not psychiatric treatment.  Many also report that reductions in number and dosages of drugs was also critical to their recovery.  It makes sense that a "therapeutic relationship" would help; and that being ignored, minimized and invalidated  would harm not help.

Every single comment critical of his slanderous column about the Alternatives Conference that took place in Anaheim last October 2010, has been removed from the Huffington Post comment thread.  There were no small number of professionals who commented; some of them have been active in advocacy since Jaffee was in grade school; he deleted all of their comments.  DJ Jaffe showed a great deal of disrespect for the people who have recovered from serious mental illnesses because they choose to identify themselves that DJ does not approve of, ironic since it is people given psychiatric diagnoses that DJ says he is advocating for.  In my  opinion, these men and women need to be heard.  The people who  have "been there" and who have come through crises transformed so to speak, are the very people who should be given more of a forum; not removed from a discussion about mental health.

Apparently, the Founder of the Mental Illness Policy Org. whose stated mission is to provide "unbiased" information to the public, Policymakers, and the Media, just saying you're an advocate for 'the seriously mentally ill' doesn't mean respecting people who have psychiatric diagnoses is necessary. If you are the "Founder," you don't actually have to provide the "Public Service" ethically or honestly, when you're the boss---This guy is utterly clueless.  Jaffee has no understanding that having Constitutional Rights spelled out in the Involuntary Treatment laws is not what protects people's rights.   More often than not, when sought and obtained these Court Orders deprive individuals of their Constitutional Rights to Procedural Due Process of Law; since Proper Notice is not served, Effective Assistance of Counsel is not provided, Rules of Evidence are ignored and Standard Court Procedures not followed; in the real world (not in pseudo-advocacy fantasy land) individuals with psychiatric labels are effectively stripped of their dignity and deprived of their Constitutional Rights.

See how DJ responds to being challenged:  here  

Forced Treatment Advocate, DJ Jaffe's Belated Response

Imagine my surprise when I discovered early (middle of the night) February 15, 2011 that a comment I made in response to DJ Jaffe's http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dj-jaffe/aftermath-of-tucson column, had actually been published and responded to by the outspoken proponent of forced medication and coercive treatment for those diagnosed with "serious mental illness," Huffington Post columnist, DJ Jaffe.

Mr. Jaffe's response to my comment was laughable in it's ignorance about how these  play out in real world practice.   Mr. Jaffe's statement that people keep coming back to "forced drugging," which he claims is irrelevant, not an issue since AOT, Assisted Out Patient treatment, does not allow it.   Civilly committing a person who is seeking to be hospitalized, is not allowed according to the law, that does not mean it is not done.  Submitting perjured testimony to a Court of Law, is not allowed, by law.  It is also not legal for a mental health professional to lie on court documents, it is also illegal to limit a person's freedom, or infringe upon a person's liberty without the individual's rights to Procedural Due Process of Law being protected.  For an individual's Constitutional Rights to be protected, Effective Assistance of Counsel needs to be available, Rules of Evidence and Standard Court Procedure need to be followed.

Apparently, Mr. Jaffe does not understand that if  there is no investigation when crimes are alleged and dutifully reported; and no one is held accountable when laws are broken by mental health professionals, or when a Defense Counsel fails to mount a defense at all.  What the law says is and is not allowed does not mean all that much when these protections are ignored.  In REALITY, the mentally ill who are court ordered have been denied their Constitutional Rights to Procedural Due Process; and have been victimized by mental health professionals who are aided and abetted in their crimes by Prosecutors, Defense Attorneys, and the Court.

Calling coercion something else does not change the nature of the act.  Using coercion in mental health treatment does not change the nature of a coercive act.  Coercion is a tool to gain control of another individual.  Using coercion in "Assisted" or "Assertive" treatment for those who have been labeled with a particular diagnosis, when the facts about the "treatment" are what they are; is more than a little suspect.  Specifically, there are a significant percentage of people, between 30-40 %, who do not benefit at all from the drugs that are used to treat schizophrenia.  The drugs can cause: diabetes, obesity, brain damage, tardive dyskinisia, and both sudden and premature death.  These facts are ignored by DJ Jaffe, and his hero, E.Fuller Torrey both of whom insist that we must make sure that those labeled are "medically treated," against their will and in spite of the deleterious effects of the "treatment."

I would laugh at the utter ignorance of this guy; but it is not funny when this level of bigotry and bias against those who have been diagnosed with a mental illness is evident in an individual who masquerades as an "advocate for the seriously mentally ill."  Apparently, Jaffe thinks being published makes him an authority.  His latest endeavor is forming the "Mental Illness Policy Org." whose mission is to provide unbiased information for Policy Makers and the Media.  A quick look at the website shows it is pretty obvious that Mr. Jaffe does not know what unbiased information is.

Knowing that comments are frequently removed from Mr. Jaffe's column on the Huffington Post, I included them in their entirety here.

Becky Murphy 11:31 AM on 1/21/2011

Mr. Jaffe,
This column is the most ignorant one I've read yet. Your comprehens­ive plan to further limit the protection of those you "advocate" for is fundamenta­lly flawed. By focusing on the forced drugging, you are ignoring any other contributo­ry cause for violence. 1. Where is your effort to call for the end of the pharmaceut­ical, psychiatri­c research and Medicaid and Medicare fraud? to wit: The US company that manufactur­es one of my son's drugs charges US citizens up to 5 X more than any other country on the planet. Stating that history of drug compliance needs to be used in commitment hearings, because it is important to know if patients deteriorat­e is flat out ignorant; since it is well documented in the literature by that antipsycho­tics cause chronic psychosis and rebound psychosis when withdrawin­g from them! This is because of the brain damage caused by them. It is also why the recovery rate for psychosis has DECLINED since the drugs were introduced­. The suggestion that one of the few safeguards for protecting the "seriously mentally ill" against what are in fact widespread Civil Rights violations­, you propose Protection and Advocacy be done away with. P&A only occasional­ly actually acts to preserve the Constituti­onal Rights of those you claim to advocate for. You actually suggest that the commitment i.e. medical decisions be made by judicial or quasi-judi­cial bodies?! You are no "ADVOCATE!­" http://inv­oluntarytr­ansformati­on.blogspo­t.com/2011­/01/advoca­cy-extremi­sts-aided-­by-lack-of­.html
Permalink |





HUFFPOST BLOGGER

DJ Jaffe 43 minutes ago (12:02 AM)

Ms Murphy:

Thank you for your comment, but medication over objection ("forced drugging" as you say) is not allowed in Kendra's Law. Decisions to medicate over objection can only be made if they comply with the existing standards as layed out Rivers v. Katz. I know some keep coming back to this issue, but it is irrelevant in the discussion of AOT which does not allow for it. I share your concern about marketing practices of pharmaceut­icals (See http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­dj-jaffe/d­oes-the-na­tional-all­ianc_b_716­331.html ). THank you.

This is the email I received on Feb 11 notifying me that Jaffe had made a comment.
Feb 11 (3 days ago)I wonder why the Huffington Post posted it midnight on the 15th?

Images are not displayed.

Display images below - Always display images from no-reply@huffingtonpost.com

You signed up to receive alerts about comments posted to the site.

This is a summary of the latest comment activity.

Comments From Members You're a Fan Of:


Blogger DJ Jaffe made 1 comments:

What Harry Reid and John Boehner Should Do in Wake of Giffords Shooting
"Ms Murphy: Thank you for your comment, but medication over objection ("forced drugging" as you say) is not allowed in Kendra's Law. Decisions to medicate over objection can only be made if they comply with the existing standards as layed out Rivers v. Katz. I know some keep coming back to this issue, but it is irrelevant in the discussion of AOT which does not allow for it. I share your concern about marketing practices of pharmaceuticals (See..." read more

Is Thomas Insel, NIMH Director Too Biased to Be Objective?

below is a recent blog post from the National Institutes of Mental Health Director, Thomas Insel, M.D. dated January 11, 2010 that takes liberties with the truth. Insel's words are promptly used to by DJ Jaffe as validation of his quest for a not so Brave New World; where anyone diagnosed with psychosis, and particularly with schizophrenia, is drugged under color of law for the remainder of their life. Isn't this the same way that the Germans instituted social policies leading up to WWII?  What kind of a plan is this for any so-called advocate to repeatedly hit America over the head with?  It is a plan based on ignorance, fear, and bigotry; absent altruistic intent and action. 

January 11, 2011

Understanding Severe Mental Illness

Posted by Thomas Insel

"When a tragedy occurs like the shooting in Tucson this past weekend, all of us seek an explanation. While there remain many questions, a leading hypothesis is that the suspect has a serious mental illness (SMI), such as schizophrenia. The topic of violence and mental illness is never an easy discussion: with issues such as stigma, incarceration, public safety, and involuntary treatment in the mix. There is a legitimate concern that talking about violence and mental illness in the same sentence increases the likelihood that people with serious illness will be further marginalized and less likely to receive appropriate care. But tragic events, whether at a Safeway in Tucson or a classroom at Virginia Tech, require us to address this uncomfortable subject with the science available."

"Is violence more common in people with SMI? Yes, during an episode of psychosis, especially psychosis associated with paranoia and so-called “command hallucinations”, the risk of violence is increased. People with SMI are up to three times more likely to be violent and when associated with substance abuse disorders, the risk may increase much further."ⁱ DJ Jaffe used the preceding, but not the following, which would have put into perspective the actual percentage of violent crime committed by those diagnosed with schizophrenia, in comparison with all violent crime; and that those with a diagnosis are at increased risk of being victimized by violent crime.

As Insels states, "But, mental illness contributes very little to the overall rate of violence in the community. Most people with SMI are not violent, and most violent acts are not committed by people with SMI. In fact, people with SMI are actually at higher risk of being victims of violence than perpetrators. Teplin et al found that those with SMI are 11 times more likely to be victims of violent crime than the general population."ⁱⁱ

"The most common form of violence associated with mental illness is not against others, but rather, against oneself. In 2007, the most recent year for which we have statistics, there were almost 35,000 suicides, nearly twice the rate of homicides. Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the United States.ⁱⁱⁱ Although it is not possible to know what prompted every suicide, it is safe to say that unrecognized, untreated mental illness is a leading culprit."

This above italicized statement is pure speculation. A statement like this coming from a scientist, who is in charge of directing the National Institutes of Mental Health, it is wholly irresponsible.  Particularly since research shows that antidepressants are not statistically any better than placebo for treating depression; and even cause some people to feel worse, and SSRIs can actually increase the suicide risk!  Citing overall suicide statistics, instead of data specific  to those with "serious mental illness" avoids having to extrapolate relevant information from subjective reports from people  who survived suicide attempts who are diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar and schizoaffective disorder who state that the horrendous adverse neurological and cognitive effects the drugs cause is what compelled  them to attempt suicide.  

Insel's inference that suicide is because not enough people receive treatment, i.e. psychotropic drugs; but failing to mention that many people can't tolerate the terrible adverse effects of the drugs, presents a biased and incomplete picture.  Are we expected to believe that the permanent neurological, cognitive and emotional negative effects of the drugs that many cite as the reason for their suicide attempt, is due to a supposed lack of insight?  Insel's inference is simplistic, biased and ignores the subjective experiences of an entire group of patients.  Insel's high suicide rate theory that not enough people are being drugged, is not grounded in anything but thin air.  The  blatant failure to acknowledge, or validate the subjective experiences of a single patient, let alone an entire group of patients, is unacceptable.  In this paragraph, Insel in effect, ignores the subjective experiences and treatment outcomes for thousands of patients.  In so doing, Insel neatly avoids telling the truth about the real world outcomes for people given neuroleptic drugs.  Insel fails his duty to the American people by failing to provide unbiased, accurate  information on the suicide data for an entire class of people. 

"Treatment may be the key to reducing the risk of violence, whether that violence is self-directed or directed at others. Research has suggested that those with schizophrenia whose psychotic symptoms are controlled are no more violent than those without SMI.^iv It’s likely that treatment not only helps ease the symptoms of mental illness, but also curbs the potential for violence as well."

"As we learn more about the circumstances surrounding the tragedy in Tucson, we should be working harder to ensure people with SMI receive the care they need. Early intervention offers the best hope to prevent more tragedies in the future."  

"For more information on SMI and other mental health statistics, please visit NIMH’s Statistics page."

"Information on coping with trauma."

---

ⁱSwanson JW. Mental disorder, substance abuse, and community violence: an epidemiological approach. In: Monahan J, Steadman HJ, eds. Violence and mental disorder: developments in risk assessment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994:101-36.

ⁱⁱTeplin et al. Crime victimization in adults with severe mental illness. Archives of General Psychiatry.2005 Aug. 62. 911-921.

ⁱⁱⁱCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS). www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars.

^ivSteadman HJ, Mulvey EP, Monahan J, et al. Violence by people discharged from acute psychiatric inpatient facilities and by others in the same neighborhoods. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1998;55:393-401.

my thoughts
This is beyond believable!   What is likely true is that while use of neuroleptics may initially "curbs the potential for violence as well," it is causing neurological and cognitive damage.  With continued treatment, the damage may progress to cause an increase in aggression due to the BRAIN DAMAGE!  The drugs used to "treat" schizophrenia also often cause akathisia  which is associated with aggression and violence.  Patients who develop akathisia describe an inner restlessness that some have further described as relentless torture; a compulsion to always be pacing, rocking and be in constant movement.  Some, after stopping the drugs, find the effects are permanent. 

Akasthisia statistically associated with physical aggression 

I agree with Dr. Insel that, "Early intervention offers the best hope to prevent more tragedies in the future." I do not agree that drugs are always the intervention needed.  With the serious deleterious effects and the potential for dependence, withdrawal and rebound psychosis which are adverse effects inherent with the use of all neuroleptic drugs, it is hard to fathom current standard clinical practice.   

These well documented risks are not disclosed in the Consent process; causing me to wonder about the integrity of  psychiatry, as an ethical medical specialty.  This is a fundamental failing that is widely accepted that is ignored when writing clinical "standards of care." While failing almost universally and totally to disclose the potential for harm, Psychiatrists label patients who are traumatized,  protest the harmful effects, and claim  the drugs are not helpful as "noncompliant;" or  worse declare that they have anosognosia. While it may be true  that some patient's lack insight; it is equally true that psychiatrists can have biases which prevent recognition of their own lack of insight.  Worse, are the professionals who minimize a patient's complaints about the prescribed drug's adverse effects, because they seem to be willfully blind to the patient's iatrogenic injuries, which are medically neglected. 

Many psychiatrists are  apparently afflicted by an inability to think critically or understand that the patient's subjective experiences and opinions truly do matter in a supportive, therapeutic relationship.  A therapeutic relationship requires mutual respect, particularly respect for the patient's human rights, and the ability to empathize with a pateint in distress.   These are fundamental to earning a patient's trust on a human level and critical to the ethical practice of psychiatry.  Why do so many psychiatrists not seem to realize this? Some don't even seem to understand that even a person in distress is aware if they are actually respected, or that trust needs to be earned by a psychiatrist who hopes to be able to help a person; even if the professional doesn't believe that a patient has any insight.

It seems to me, the way psychiatry is practiced relying on biased information, abuse of power and authority, coercion, police powers, and court orders; psychiatry is making sure, "that people with serious illness will be further marginalized and less likely to receive appropriate care." (and less likely to seek it!) As for Insel's, "legitimate concern that talking about violence and mental illness in the same sentence increases the likelihood" of those psychiatrically labeled being further marginalized; his concern does not appear to motivate the director of NIMH to rely on unbiased and valid information when writing his blog. It is dishonest (and unethical) for Thomas Insel to neglect mentioning that the very drugs he claims are "necessary medical treatment" in the prevention of aggressive and violent behavior in people diagnosed with mental illnesses, are in fact well-known to increase violent, aggressive, suicidal and homicidal behaviors for a statistically significant number of people who are prescribed neuroleptic, and other psychotropic drugs...

Shame on you, Thomas Insel!