Washington State's Involuntary Treatment Act legalized discrimination and Civil Rights violations

This post is in response to an OP-Ed in the Seattle Times written by Walt Stawicki which was published January 5, 2013 

No one is free when others are oppressed.

Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.  

~Abraham Lincoln

I believe we must speak our conscience in moments that demand it, 
even if we are but one voice.
~Richard B. Sanders

via The Seattle Times:

Op-ed: Mental illness and violence — what must change in Washington state

We’re in denial about the connection between mental illness and the shootings at the school in Newtown, Conn., the movie theater in Aurora, Colo., and Cafe Racer in Seattle, writes guest columnist Walt Stawicki 

"We’re in denial about the connection between mental illness and the shootings at the school in Newtown, Conn., the movie theater in Aurora, Colo., and Cafe Racer in Seattle. These statistics suggest that half or two-thirds of spree shooters were often formally diagnosed, formerly hospitalized, or had shown rage, aggression, paranoia and/or delusional thinking.

"If half to two-thirds does not suggest a pattern, what can? Would it be suggested by the extensive statements of family members who lived with the emergent dangers?" read here

All due respect to Mr. Stawicki, who is seeking to help other families, the perspectives and the needs of family members who are concerned about a loved one with mental illness, are valid and important, but are not necessarily the perspective from which a rational response to tragedy will come. The sense of social responsibility that Mr. Stawicki has is admirable.  That said, I find it troubling that this OP-Ed was published in the State of Washington's largest newspaper with no source given for the "facts" it contains. Mr. Stawicki flatly declares that the criteria to have a person civilly committed is too strict, and needs to be loosened up; because he says, that's what families have told him. I suspect, that his opinion is offered at least in part because Mr. Stawicki was sought out, "informed" and encouraged to advocate by DJ Jaffe; a forced treatment proponent who lives in New York State. 

Mr. Stawicki, by his own admission, has no experience with the mental health system, no history of unsuccessful attempts to access mental health services for his son. In light of this lack of experience, it is troubling that he states,  "In most cases, families see something coming. Even though we may be afraid of what our loved ones may do, we have learned that the system is not going to help until it’s time for ambulances and body bags." 

Mr. Stawicki did not cite any sources for the "statistics" he used in his editorial, and has no personal experience to base his belief that "the system is not going to help until ambulances and body bags are needed" on.  This statement and Mr. Stawicki quoting DJ Jaffe making the outrageous claim that, "There are ways to know which mentally ill individuals become or are likely to become violent," undermines his credibility as an advocate. This quote is an opinion without a factual basis. It is an outrageous claim for a so-called "advocate for the seriously mentally ill" to make, and Mr. Stawicki using it as if it is a fact, is irresponsible. The professional literature is quite clear that there is not yet any way to reliably predict who will become violent.  The methods the professionals do have to assess the risk for violence are not accurate enough to reliably predict an individual's potential for violence. Additionally, the belief that psychiatric treatment can prevent violence is contradictory to well documented adverse effects of the psychotropics drugs that psychiatrists use to treat mental illnesses they diagnose that are known to cause  violent, aggressive, suicidal and homicidal behaviors.  

via the American Psychiatric Association: 

Position Statement on Assessing the Risk for Violence

Approved by the Board of Trustees, July 2012
Approved by the Assembly, May 2012

"Policy documents are approved by the APA Assembly and Board of Trustees…These are…position statements that define APA official policy on specific subjects…" 

– APA Operations Manual.

This position statement was proposed by the Workgroup on Violence Risk of the Council on Psychiatry and Law.

During their careers most psychiatrists will assess the risk of violence to others. While psychiatrists can often identify circumstances associated with an increased likelihood of violent behavior, they cannot predict dangerousness with definitive accuracy. Over any given period some individuals assessed to be at low risk will act violently while others assessed to be at high risk will not. When deciding whether a patient is in need of intervention to prevent harm to others, psychiatrists should consider both the presence of recognized risk factors and the most likely precipitants of violence in a particular case.

The members of the Workgroup on Violence Risk are: Alec Buchanan, M.D. (Chairperson), Michael A. Norko, M.D., Renee L. Binder, M.D., and Marvin Swartz, M.D.

While there is no way to know for certain, it is possible the tragic events in which Ian Statawicki shot and killed five people, and injured a sixth before taking his own life, may have never occurred had he been prosecuted for the two assaults he committed in 2007 and 2010.  He was not prosecuted because a girlfriend and his mother lied about what had occurred, and the King County and Kittitas County Prosecutors had to drop the assault charges against him.  

HAD IAN STAWICKI BEEN PROSECUTED FOR ASSAULT EITHER OF THE TWO TIMES HE WAS ARRESTED, HE WOULD NOT HAVE HAD THE RIGHT TO OWN OR POSSESS ANY FIREARMS; HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO GET A CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT. HAD IAN STAWICKI BEEN CONVICTED, HE COULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO GET THE TREATMENT HIS FATHER SAYS HE NEEDED AS PART OF HIS SENTENCE.

via Seattle Times:

"One of Stawicki's ex-girlfriends, who he dated for three years, noticed his personality "suddenly changed" in late 2007, when he began flying into a violent rages, according to a domestic-violence court filing. In February 2008, she came home to find Stawicki smashing more than $1,000 worth of belongings, including her computer monitor and vinyl-record collection.

"When she tried to call 911, "All of a sudden I was on the ground and my nose was bleeding," she told police.

"He grabbed his .45-caliber handgun and fled into nearby Discovery Park before a police K9 unit tracked him down.

"He was charged with four domestic violence-related misdemeanors, but the charges were dismissed when the woman filed a sworn statement to Stawicki's attorney, Michael Kolker of Seattle, disputing the police report. Kolker declined to comment.

"Two years later, in March 2010, Stawicki displayed similar rage when, according to police report, he attacked his brother, Andrew, at their family's Ellensburg home. Stawicki said he "was blind" because of his younger brother, and began punching him in front of their mother.

"Andrew Stawicki said the incident is the reason he stopped talking to his brother.

"Ian Stawicki was again charged with misdemeanor assault, and represented by Kolker. This time it was his mother disputing the police report, describing it as a verbal, not physical, confrontation, and prosecutors dropped the charges." read  here 

I live here in Washington, and I have all my life, as have my children who are now grown. I have no doubt that the civil commitment criteria in Washington State's Involuntary Treatment Act do not need to be lower than they are currently. Washington State allows gossip and hearsay to be used as "evidence." I know for a fact from experience, that when the current standards are not followed, there is no investigation, even though the Law states it is a requirement. I know for a fact that perjury and forgery can be used by unethical mental health professionals with impunity. These "professionals can then shred the original Court documents and cover up their crimes; knowing that no criminal investigation will be conducted if  the crimes are reported. The reality is, when people with serious mental illness are the victims of crime, the perpetrators are seldom held accountable.  Even if the perpetrator is a Police Officer another one here.

Two of my major issues with mainstream advocacy groups and and advocates like DJ Jaffe is the utter and complete failure to do any advocacy for bringing those who  perpetrate crimes harming and killing the people diagnosed with mental illnesses to justice. The other, is the fact that these groups are silent about the amount of fraud and blatant corruption in psychiatry through it's collusion with the drug industry. It is pseudo-science with consensus based psychiatric diagnoses and "medical," e.g. psychopharmacological treatments.  Instead, these sort of advocates capitalize on tragedies involving mentally ill victims and/or perpetrators and enlist the parents as advocates for the forced treatment agenda. Advocating for an agenda is not the same thing as advocating for the people who have a psychiatric diagnosis that the forced treatment agenda is going to be implemented against. 

I have not been myself since the summer of 2010 when I realized that many things are just not at all how I believed them to be. This realization is painful, as were the events which brought it about. Felony crimes were committed in Yakima County Superior Court against my son, and when I filed a criminal complaint reporting the crimes with Law Enforcement, and the Division of Behavioral Health and Recovery, Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights, and the Department of Justice, Office of Civil Rights, Criminal Division--nothing happened. Well, some things happened; however, none of the things that should have happened, have happened. No investigation, no prosecution, and no conviction for the felony crimes committed by medical and legal “professionals” who abandoned their training, the ethics of their chosen professions, their duty to my son and their duty as Officers of the Court. Using a forged document and perjury as “evidence” these people went into Yakima County Superior Court to obtain Court Orders to detain and subsequently commit my son. These crimes were committed when he sought to be hospitalized because he was in crisis. He had committed no crime. He has never refused to take prescribed medications; nor has he ever refused to go to scheduled appointments.

Although involuntary treatment commitment proceedings are considered, “civil” as opposed to “criminal;” one should have no doubt that the loss of one’s liberty and the loss of legal and political status, without being afforded equal protection under the law, is a violation of one’s Human Rights, codified as one's Constitutional rights, here in the United States. The consequences are as detrimental, if not more so, than the consequences for a misdemeanor criminal conviction. The consequences of a civil commitment proceeding which results in a Court Order, can conceivably last the remainder of one’s lifetime. The legal protections the law affords a person in a civil commitment proceeding is less than that afforded criminal defendants; even if the person facing involuntary commitment is not suspected of committing any crime...Not unlike a misdemeanor criminal conviction, a Court Order for involuntary treatment alters a person’s legal status; however, unlike most criminal convictions, a civil commitment may ultimately result in a lifetime deprivation or limitation of the individual's Liberty; vis-à-vis community treatment orders.


Why are there different, and much lower standards used in Civil Involuntary Commitment proceedings than in any other type of Court proceeding? The Involuntary Treatment statute deprives a person of their individual Constitutional Rights which are preserved and defended for people who are charged with crimes.   

1. The “evidence” required to obtain a Court Order to detain, and/or commit a person can be nothing more than hearsay, speculation, gossip and innuendo. In my son's case, the "evidence" was fabricated by unethical mental health "professionals" who acted Under Color of Law with impunity. The mental health clinic that employs them shredded the original court documents, a violation of the law that was reported, but never investigated or prosecuted.

2. It is alleged or implied in these proceedings that the person has a “brain disease” a genetic defect, or a "chemical imbalance" and that it is a psychiatric diagnosis that can be corrected, or at least, “medically treated.” No factual evidence is offered to substantiate what is alleged or implied; nor is any evidence that the person has a disease or defect even required.

3. Standard Court Procedures are not followed. By law, following Standard Court Procedures is not required in civil commitment proceedings.

4. The person subjected to these proceedings is appointed an attorney; however, this does not mean that Effective Assistance of Counsel is provided. Not only are the legal, social and political consequences of a Court Order for Involuntary Treatment  profound; the medical consequences can be lethal--A vigorous defense is needed, yet rarely is any defense, let alone a vigorous one, even attempted. An attorney was assigned 700 Involuntary Commitment cases to defend in one year working as Assigned Counsel in Yakima County's Office of Assigned Counsel, he unabashedly admitted that he had unsuccessfully mounted a defense in 3 of the 700 cases.

The obvious detrimental social, political and legal consequences to the person court ordered to Involuntary Treatment demands that individuals who are subject to these proceedings have equal protection under the law. It is ethically, legally and morally indefensible that the law requires so much less. It is an intentional violation of an individual's civil rights. It is a legally mandated social policy that “legalized” discrimination against an entire class of people. It purposely deprives people of their individual rights Under Color of Law. It is inhumane to deprive vulnerable people of equal protection under the law. The attempts to justify this social policy by claiming it is in a victim’s “best interest;” or that any of this is done “for their own good” is all things considered, truly despicable and utterly reprehensible.

The answer to “Why are there different, and much lower standards used in Civil Involuntary Commitment proceedings?” It is because there is no evidence that a psychiatric diagnosis of schizophrenia, for example, is caused by a brain disease or genetic defect. It is a hypothesis, not even a theory. Therefore, there is no evidence to offer a Court that complies with or conforms to the Rules of Evidence used in Courts of Law in every other criminal or civil proceeding. These involuntary treatment hearings can only be undertaken by depriving individuals of their Constitutional Rights. So, this unconstitutional law further declares that the standard Rules of Evidence do not apply, and neither do Standard Court Procedures. 

Psychiatry is not an ethical medical practice, if it were, it would use ethical medical principles. It would not use fraudulent and discredited research, and adopt standards based on subjective opinions. It would not rationalize and justify misinforming patients and the general public about the nature of psychiatric diagnoses and treatments as being done "for their own good." Psychiatry if it were an ethical medical practice,would not later claim that professionals were stating diagnoses are diseases not because it was the truth,(because it is not) but it was simply, "a metaphor" used to help patients "understand" how important taking their drugs and being "treatment compliant" is. What a despicable juvenile rationalization and justification for an intentional deceit that in effect, and in fact made committing criminal fraud a standard clinical practice. Psychiatrists participated in widespread corruption and fraud to "practice medicine." The billions of dollars of fraud that the pharmaceutical industry has been fined for what is still an ongoing criminal enterprise has netted taxpayers billions of dollars in fines; a very small percentage of what was defrauded from the public coffers. The fraud and and illegal marketing could not have been implemented at all without the willing cooperation and felonious complicity of psychiatrists who are considered "leaders" in the American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Every one of the "patient advocacy groups" have some of these same criminals serving as "scientific advisers" and/or Board members.

If Involuntary Treatment is, "in the patient's best interest," and "for their own good..." 
I'm Mary Freakin' Poppins!

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

Grace E. Jackson, M.D., affidavit on toxicity and brain damage

Involuntary Commitment and Forced Psychiatric Drugging in the Trial Courts: Rights Violations as a Matter of Course, by James B. (Jim) Gottstein, 25 Alaska L. Rev.  51 (2008).

Neurleptic Drugs and Violence Catherine Clarke SRN, SCM, MSSCH, MBChA.
and Jan Evans MCSP. Grad Dip Phys.

Adverse Treatment Effects Become Symptoms of "Mental Illness"?

via Mental health America:

MENTAL HEALTH IN THE HEADLINES

Week of January 7, 2013

---

Mental Health in the Headlines is a weekly newsletter providing the latest developments at Mental Health America and summaries of news, views and research in the mental health field. Coverage of news items in this publication does not represent Mental Health America’s support for or opposition to the stories summarized or the views they express.

TODAY’S HEADLINE

Brain imaging can identify young people at risk for bipolar disorder, according to a new study…more

NEWS FROM MENTAL HEALTH AMERICA

Mental Health America Calls for National Action in Response to Newtown Tragedy: Urges Leaders to Identify, Implement Solutions That Expand Capacity, Capabilities of Mental Health Programs and Services.(de-emphasis mine)

I could go no further. I thought the primary mission for Mental Health Programs and Services is to assist individuals and families to increase their own capabilities, so each can  achieve their own best functional capacity...but what the hell do I know...

Maybe I'm too sensitive,  I am saddened by the fear-driven biased manner in which public policy for "mental health" is formulated, funded and structured. Building the sytems capabilities and capacity while relying on flawed and biased information, is not the best way to help the children, youth, adults and families and elderly citizens that mental health programs serve.  Focusing precious resources on identifying kids "at risk for being diagnosed with bipolar disorder," would virtually ensure the kid becomes a life-long patient; becoming the fodder that fuels an ever-expanding drug marketing agenda. This particular endeavor is predicated on the notion one can actually rely on  a brain scan to make a determination who will be diagnosed with bipolar disorder in the future. To date, no person has ever been given a psychiatric diagnosis for a mental illness on the basis of a brain scan. 

Would it be reasonable to suspend disbelief and conclude that it's possible to predict a future diagnosis, like it's simply a parlor trick? I could do it, without a brain scan.  Identify the kids experiencing multiple traumas, since experiencing multiple traumas is the most common risk factor associated with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder.  

I wonder if a patient's purported "lack of insight" is the excuse used for dismissing anything a patient says that anyone else just doesn't want to hear?  It is really strange that people delude themselves into believing that their own callous behavior that invalidates the patient, is caused by the patient's "lack of insight." It'd be hilarious; if it weren't dehumanizing and deadly. How a psychiatric diagnosis justifies not using ethical medical principles; necessitates decimating individual rights protections for an entire class of people in Courts of Law; and allows Designated Mental Health Professionals with no legal training, to detain people Under Color of Law; is a total mystery to me...Why would the ethical and legal duty owed to a human being diagnosed with a mental illness become less?  It's criminal.    

The Nation's Voice on Mental Illness says, 

"A mental illness is an illness like any other illness." 

Psychiatry is a sub-specialty of "medicine" that treats; but does not cure. Treatment is recommended for life for patients diagnosed with the "diseases" Schizophrenia or Bipolar Disorder, and the various combinations/types of both these "serious mental illnesses."  A life that may be 25-30 years shorter than it would be without diagnosis and psychiatric treatment, due to an early or sudden death from the cumulative adverse effects and iatrogenic injuries.

Given the paucity of evidence for the disease hypothesis of schizophrenia, and the minimal "effectiveness" and the dangers of the using neurloetic drugs; it is a tragic irony that prescribing neuroleptics off label to children, is vehemently defended, repeatedly investigated, and monitored; but NEVER carefully considered or questioned...How did it become a standard practice without a solid foundation in clinical research? Devotion to the idea that the disease hypothesis of schizophrenia is an established "fact" seems to cause psuedologia fatastica, blindness to medical neglect of psychiatric patients, and the unwavering belief that a patient who says the treatment is torture, lacks insight.  It's for their own good!  No need to pay any attention to what the patient feels, believes, or experiences, they lack insight... 

There is this CME gem: 

via Psychiatric Times:

PTSD, VIOLENCE, AND TRAUMA 

Violence in Bipolar Disorder

What Role Does Childhood Trauma Play?

By Allison M. R. Lee, MD and Igor I. Galynker, MD, PhD | November 17, 2010

an excerpt:

Checkpoints

■ A history of 2 or more types of trauma has been associated with a 3-fold increased risk of bipolar disorder, as well as a worse clinical course that includes early onset, faster cycling, and increased rates of suicide.

■ There is an overlap between the neurochemical changes found in adults with histories of traumatic stress and those in adults with increased impulsive aggression, in particular, increased functioning of both the catecholamine system and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis..

■ Agitation may result in impulsive aggression during manic and mixed episodes in bipolar patients, and depressed states may also carry a risk for violent behavior.

The above article is preparation for the "Risk Assessment Quiz:

A history of trauma is uniquely related to which of the following? A. Borderline personality disorder B. Substance abuse C. Major depressive disorder D. Bipolar disorder E. Schizophrenia

This is all so eerily reminiscent of the violence initiative. Why are we seeking to indentify kids "potentially at risk" for being diagnosed with biploar disorder with violent behavior, by a brain scan, but not seeking to correct the various identified socio/economic/political environmental deficits known to increase the risk? It is an effort to identify poor kids in violent neighborhoods who are being harmed. Wouldn't it make more sense, be more effective (and actually be helpful) to address the causes of increased risk?  Scanning kids' brains to predict future "mental illness" reeks of...

The Violence Initiative

When did "Symptoms such as paranoid delusions or command auditory hallucinations" become symptoms of bipolar disorder?  I'm guessing it was about a  decade or so after patients with bipolar disorder diagnosis began to be treated with neuroleptic, or "antipsychotic" drugs in standard clinical practice.  The diagnostic critieria for schizophrenia underwent a similar change about a decade or so after neuroleptic drugs were in use.  Once a significant percentage of patients experienced common, detrimental adverse effects, the adverse effects were by consensus, considered to be symptoms of the mental illness the drugs were prescribed to treat. The adverse effects were not to be considered iatrogenic biochemical injuries, they were now either symptoms of mental illness, or the "tolerable side effects" of "necessary medical treatment." Adverse effects become symtoms of the diagnosis because of errors of attribution, intentional deceit, willful blindness, and/or sheer hubris. 

Claiming the treatment is "for the patient's own good," is truly despicable. It is akin to the rapist justifying a rape as being for the victim's own good. The trauma of  a rape does not serve the best interests of the victim; how can the risk and the common outcome of iatrogenic disease, disability and death be justifiable risks that can be forced upon a patient under Color of Law after they have been stripped of their human dignity, perhaps without any factual basis according to the Rules of Evidence that are mandatory for every other Civil or Criminal Court proceeding?

Neuroleptic drugs  cause a sense of restlessness and inner agitation.  It is a common negative effect described by some who experience it, as relentless torture. Neuroleptics are known to increase the risk for aggression, and can actually cause delusions and hallucinations. These are called "side effects;" in reality, calling negative effects "side-effects" is misleading; these are more accurately described as  negative effects that are caused by the drug's mechanisms of action. So, in truth, the effects are direct adverse effects.  For a prescriber to interpret the iatrogenic injuries caused by a drug's known direct effects, as "tolerable side effects" of "effective pharmacological treatment" shows a profound lack of insight. It is an added insult to the iatrogenic injuries inflicted upon patients with impunity by psychiatric professionals.  

President Obama Responds to We the People Petition

via The White House: 

We the People petition 

"launch a federal investigation in to the relationship between 

school shootings and psychiatric drugs."

On Wednesday, the President outlined a series of first steps we can take to begin the work of ending this cycle of violence. This is what he said:

We know this is a complex issue that stirs deeply held passions and political divides. And as I said on Sunday night, there's no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence in our society. We're going to need to work on making access to mental health care at least as easy as access to a gun. We're going to need to look more closely at a culture that all too often glorifies guns and violence. And any actions we must take must begin inside the home and inside our hearts.

But the fact that this problem is complex can no longer be an excuse for doing nothing. The fact that we can't prevent every act of violence doesn't mean we can't steadily reduce the violence, and prevent the very worst violence.

Vice President Biden has been asked to work with members of the Administration, Congress, and the general public to come up with a set of concrete policy proposals by next month -- proposals the President intends to push swiftly. The President asked the Vice President to lead this effort in part because he wrote and passed the 1994 Crime Bill that helped law enforcement bring down the rate of violent crime in America. That bill included the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.

As the Vice President's Chief of Staff, I'm going to do everything I can to ensure we run a process that includes perspectives from all sides of the issue, which is why I wanted to respond to your petition myself. Two decades ago, as domestic policy adviser in the Clinton White House, I first worked with Joe Biden as he fought to enact the Crime Bill, the assault weapons ban, and the Brady Bill. I will never forget what a key role the voices of concerned citizens like you played in that vital process.

The President called on Congress to pass important legislation "banning the sale of military-style assault weapons," "banning the sale of high-capacity ammunition clips," and "requiring background checks before all gun purchases, so that criminals can’t take advantage of legal loopholes to buy a gun from somebody who won’t take the responsibility of doing a background check at all."

An issue this serious and complex isn't going to be resolved with a single legislative proposal or policy prescription. And let's be clear, any action we take will respect the Second Amendment. As the President said:

Look, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. This country has a strong tradition of gun ownership that's been handed down from generation to generation. Obviously across the country there are regional differences. There are differences between how people feel in urban areas and rural areas. And the fact is the vast majority of gun owners in America are responsible -- they buy their guns legally and they use them safely, whether for hunting or sport shooting, collection or protection.

But you know what, I am also betting that the majority -- the vast majority -- of responsible, law-abiding gun owners would be some of the first to say that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few from buying a weapon of war. I'm willing to bet that they don't think that using a gun and using common sense are incompatible ideas -- that an unbalanced man shouldn't be able to get his hands on a military-style assault rifle so easily; that in this age of technology, we should be able to check someone's criminal records before he or she can check out at a gun show; that if we work harder to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, there would be fewer atrocities like the one in Newtown -- or any of the lesser-known tragedies that visit small towns and big cities all across America every day.

The President said it best: "Ultimately if this effort is to succeed it's going to require the help of the American people -- it's going to require all of you. If we're going to change things, it's going to take a wave of Americans -- mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, pastors, law enforcement, mental health professionals -- and, yes, gun owners -- standing up and saying 'enough' on behalf of our kids."

So let's continue this conversation and get something meaningful done. If you have additional ideas and are interested in further engagement with the White House on this issue, please let us know and share your thoughts here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/share-your-thoughts-reducing-gun-violence

Thank you for speaking out and staying involved.

Bruce Reed is Chief of Staff to Vice President Biden

read the petition "launch a federal investigation in to the relationship between school shootings and psychiatric drugs."here

Washington State's Age of Consent Law for Psychiatric Treatment: Children At Risk

A 17 year old teenager I know shared with me that she had scabies. She went to get treated for it at a local medical clinic, but was refused treatment because she did not have a parent with her to provide consent.  I was immediately struck by the fact, that if she was depressed or distressed and had sought help at a  mental health clinic, she would not have needed a guardian to provide Informed Consent for treatment.  Had this teenager gone to a mental health clinic, or to an ER for help in an emotional crisis; she could have been labeled with a psychiatric diagnosis, and prescribed drugs; without a parent or guardian being informed at all. Psychotropic drugs have risks that require an individual taking the drugs be closely observed by others since a person would not always be able to recognize they are experiencing an adverse reaction.

The diagnosis and treatment for scabies is quite different from the diagnosis and treatment of emotional and behavioral difficulties.  Scabies can be objectively diagnosed based upon the presence of  a rash caused by mites, while "mental illness" is diagnosed based upon subjective opinion and observation, which is imprecise, and not scientific.  Scabies is a condition that is contagious, "mental illness" is not contagious. Since a psychiatric diagnosis is a subjective diagnosis, the same person can be labeled with totally different diagnoses by every diagnostician who assesses their symtoms. The treatment for scabies has risks which are minimal, and virtually always cure scabies. The drugs used to treat emotional and behavioral symptoms come with some very serious risks, and do not offer a cure. Conversely, psychiatric treatments have serious risks including increased suicide risk, (particularly for teenagers) with SSRI antidepressants; and neuroleptics, called  "antipsychotics" can cause akathisia, diabetes, obesity, and Tardive Dyskinesia, a neurological impairment, which can be permanent; even if a person stops taking the drug that caused it.

It seems that the Age of Consent being 13 in Washington State has intentionally or not, put children at risk. I have no doubt this law is being misused; effectively placing vulnerable children at further risk.  Are we to assume that adolescents do not need of the protection or the advice and support of a parent or guardian whose concern is primarily for their health and well-being when faced with a mental health diagnosis? Washington State Law allows an adolescent to be legally responsible for providing Informed Consent for mental health and substance abuse treatment; when the average adult would have difficulty knowing what questions to ask about the drugs being prescribed.

This Law is ill-advised primarily because it is established that humans brains are not fully developed until adulthood. Even a bright adolescent would be at a disadvantage due to lack of experience; being a kid means the balance of power puts teenagers at an even a greater disadvantage in effectively asserting their autonomy. The potential for being coerced and/or unfairly influenced by adults, particularly by adults who are often authority figures in and out of the clinical setting is incalculable; but may be profoundly greater than it is for adults. I can attest that coercion has been is used as a matter of course with impunity by the majority of mental health professionals I have dealt with over 20+ years.

How would the average teenager know what questions to ask? Making a decision to take a psychotropic drug to alter their emotions and behavior instead of learning coping skills to deal with the stresses of their day to day lives can be potentially disabling and even fatal; yet Washington State Law does not require a parent or guardian to be consulted. The law in fact prohibits their parents or guardians from being informed about prescribed drugs if a teenager does not consent. Instead of the unconditional love and support they need; kids are told they have a brain disease which requires taking teratogenic drugs to treat it. As stated by Dr. Marcia Angell, in The Illusions of Psychiatry, "At the very least, we need to stop thinking of psychoactive drugs as the best, and often the only, treatment for mental illness or emotional distress. Both psychotherapy and exercise have been shown to be as effective as drugs for depression, and their effects are longer-lasting, but unfortunately, there is no industry to push these alternatives and Americans have come to believe that pills must be more potent."

Parental Rights to protect their children, and to act in a child's best interest are effectively denied.
My rights were denied by Jon McClellan, while my son was at CSTC.  When I brought my seriously impaired son home, George Petzinger and  Philip Rodenberger, two psychiatrists at two different community mental health clinics in the community, also refused to talk about lowering the dosages of drugs each of them prescribed to my son. First prescribed to my son by Jon McClellan; the drugs were not FDA approved for pediatric use; and were known to cause permanent iatrogenic, or physician caused, diseases and impairments. Each of these three psychiatrists told me I had no say. All three used the same excuse: that I had no say because my son was over the age of 13. While at Child Study and Treatment Center, my son was told that he would not get to leave and go home if he did not take the drugs as prescribed; so naturally, he "took them willingly." George Petzinger claimed he had no idea how to lower the dosages, when I asked him; he also stated there was no one he could consult with about lowering the dosages either... Clearly, the decision to use my son as a guinea pig had been made by psychiatrists who also determined consent, informed, or otherwise was never required; an impaired adolescent's coerced assent would suffice...

Using the Age of Consent in this way is not the purpose of RCW. 71.34, as stated in RCW 71.34.010; but it is in fact used to exclude parents in standard clinical practice--I don't believe my son and I were singled out for "special treatment," or treated differently than other people.

RCW 71.34.010
Purpose — parental participation in treatment decisions — parental control of minor children during treatment.

It is the purpose of this chapter to assure that minors in need of mental health care and treatment receive an appropriate continuum of culturally relevant care and treatment, including prevention and early intervention, self-directed care, parent-directed care, and involuntary treatment. To facilitate the continuum of care and treatment to minors in out-of-home placements, all divisions of the department that provide mental health services to minors shall jointly plan and deliver those services.

It is also the purpose of this chapter to protect the rights of minors against needless hospitalization and deprivations of liberty and to enable treatment decisions to be made in response to clinical needs in accordance with sound professional judgment. The mental health care and treatment providers shall encourage the use of voluntary services and, whenever clinically appropriate, the providers shall offer less restrictive alternatives to inpatient treatment. Additionally, all mental health care and treatment providers shall assure that minors' parents are given an opportunity to participate in the treatment decisions for their minor children. The mental health care and treatment providers shall, to the extent possible, offer services that involve minors' parents or family.

It is also the purpose of this chapter to assure the ability of parents to exercise reasonable, compassionate care and control of their minor children when there is a medical necessity for treatment and without the requirement of filing a petition under this chapter.(emphasis mine)
[1998 c 296 § 7; 1992 c 205 § 302; 1985 c 354 § 1.]

via The New York Review of Books:

The Illusions of Psychiatry
the final paragraph:
"In particular, we need to rethink the care of troubled children. Here the problem is often troubled families in troubled circumstances. Treatment directed at these environmental conditions—such as one-on-one tutoring to help parents cope or after-school centers for the children—should be studied and compared with drug treatment. In the long run, such alternatives would probably be less expensive. Our reliance on psychoactive drugs, seemingly for all of life’s discontents, tends to close off other options. In view of the risks and questionable long-term effectiveness of drugs, we need to do better. Above all, we should remember the time-honored medical dictum: first, do no harm (primum non nocere)."    Marcia Angell, M.D. 

A final note: State Law also states that a juvenile's request to no longer assent or consent to taking psychotropic drugs must be in writing---my son repeatedly stated to Child Study and Treatment staff that he did not want to take the drugs; he was ignored. It is a reprehensible really, all things considered. The profound deleterious effects of the drugs Jon McClellan prescribed without Informed Consent almost totally incapacitated my son, he could barely walk or talk; and he couldn't hold up his head. There is no way in hell he could have written a statement...

portions of this post originally published on 1-27-2011 "Washington State Age of Consent Puts Children At Risk"
picture credit