Psychiatric Drug Facts via breggin.com :

“Most psychiatric drugs can cause withdrawal reactions, sometimes including life-threatening emotional and physical withdrawal problems… Withdrawal from psychiatric drugs should be done carefully under experienced clinical supervision.” Dr. Peter Breggin
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts

Aug 2, 2014

Solitary Confinement: It Defines Who We Are

FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (C) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.

via Psychiatric Times:

July 18, 2014Forensic Psychiatry, Couch in Crisis, Risk Assessment, Trauma And Violence
COMMENTARY
Cruel and unusual—Amendment VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
In The New York Times’ “New York State in Deal to Limit Inmate Isolation,” Benjamin Weiser describes an agreement between the New York Civil Liberties Union and the New York Department of Corrections.1The agreement delays litigation of a suit filed in 2012, by the NYCLU, over the use of isolation for punitive purposes within New York State prisons.2 Their comprehensive report, Boxed In: The True Cost of Extreme Isolation in New York’s Prisons, details the basis of the lawsuit.3 Mr Weiser refers to the provisions in the new agreement as “sweeping reforms.”
Highlights of the New York State agreement include: 1) prohibiting the use of solitary confinement for prisoners under age 18 years; 2) prohibiting its use with pregnant women; and 3) limiting its use with developmentally disabled prisoners to a maximum of 30 days.4 The prohibition against solitary confinement for these “special” populations acknowledges that the practice is harmful to human beings. And imposing these limitations by category admits that, however dangerous the pregnant woman or the adolescent is judged to be, somehow the system will find a way to avoid implementing this administrative, ie, non-judicial, punishment.

Sweeping reforms? While it may be a relief to New Yorkers that pregnant women and high-school age prisoners will no longer to be subjected to solitary confinement, the reforms that the New York Times calls “sweeping” in fact allow this practice to continue for a minimum of 2 additional years.1,2 These “sweeping reforms” simply protect those who can’t protect themselves (teenagers, unborn children, and the developmentally disabled), those who almost anyone with a bit of common sense, humanity, or political astuteness would exempt. For the vast majority of prisoners, no such limitations have been imposed, nor will any be imposed in the near future because the agreement means “business as usual” until the next court hearing. In other words, it authorized 2 more years of being at risk for solitary confinement for most inmates. The NYCLU and the Federal District Court in Manhattan gave the state of New York exactly what it wanted, and what the New York Times described as “sweeping reforms.”
Lost, stray, and unwanted animalscruel and unusual punishment of psychiatric patients

Most of our society agrees that lost, stray, and unwanted animals should be treated in a caring and humane manner. Shouldn’t our fellow human beings be treated at least as well as our stray animals while “paying their debt to society?” Would anyone allow a stray or unwanted dog to be socially isolated for 5 months? I doubt it. But 5 months is the average duration for “extreme isolation” in New York State prisons—for human detainees!1,3According to Rick Raemisch, the new head of the Colorado prison system, the average length of solitary confinement in Colorado prisons is 23 months. Some inmates there spend as many as 20 years in solitary.5
In corrections language, “solitary confinement” is referred to as “administrative segregation,” or (even more antiseptically) as “Ad Seg.”
Colorado experience
Rick Raemisch is also the former Sheriff of the county in which I have spent most of my professional life. He was recently appointed to replace Tom Clements as the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections. Mr Clements was brutally murdered at his front door in March 2013.6 The murderer had been released from solitary confinement directly into the community shortly before the murder. The sad irony is that Mr Clements, described by Mr Raemisch to be “as courageous a reformer as they come,” had already reduced the number of prisoners in solitary confinement by half in just 2 years.5
The governor of Colorado gave Mr Raemisch 3 directives when he appointed him:
• Limit or eliminate the use of solitary confinement for mentally ill inmates.
• Address the needs of those who have been in solitary for long periods.
• Reduce the number of offenders released directly from solitary back into their communities.
To begin to understand these goals, Mr Raemisch spent 20 hours in solitary confinement in the Colorado State Penitentiary. Raemisch described his experience in an Op-Ed in the New York Times as “practically a blink” compared to the average stay.5 He later testified before a Senate subcommittee about his experience and recommendations.7
Following his single night in solitary—but before the end of his self-imposed sentence of 20 hours—Mr Raemisch broke a promise to himself and asked a guard for the time. It was 11:10 AM. “I felt as if I’d been there for days. I sat with my mind. How long would it take before Ad Seg chipped that away? I don’t know, but I’m confident that it would be a battle I would lose.”
I do not know Mr Raemisch personally. Before his New York Times Op-Ed, I knew of him only through his red campaign signs in our former neighborhood.8 I had voted for him for sheriff based on our local newspaper’s endorsement. He is a successful and seemingly dedicated individual. How many of us would spend a night in solitary, or a night as a patient in a public mental hospital, to better enable us do our jobs? I’ve never once considered doing such a thing. If Raemisch is “confident” that he would lose his mind in solitary confinement, it seems fair to assume that it’s a battle most of our patients would lose. And so would virtually every prisoner so treated.
The “social brain”
A very benign interpretation of the disciplinary use of solitary confinement is that it began when we didn’t know any better. We now understand that the brain evolved as a social organ—an organ that facilitates social interactions of all types, analogous to the heart and the lungs evolving as cardiovascular-respiratory organs.9,10 Without social interaction, the mental human being ceases to exist, just as the physical human being ceases to exist if the cardiovascular system stops functioning. “I sat with my mind . . . it would be a battle I would lose.”
Perhaps this is naïve, but I recall as a child, touring many of the original 13 colonies with my parents, seeing historic replicas of pillories where convicted criminals endured the humiliation of rotten tomatoes and vegetables being being thrown at them in their obviously defenseless position. This was later declared “cruel and unusual punishment.” At least that punishment was temporary. At least it was actually a social experience. It may have shamed and embarrassed, but it was social, and it was public. It was not an assault on the essence of the human brain and the brain’s emergent property of mind.
Human rights and solitary confinement
Although New York State had earlier banned the use of solitary confinement with seriously mentally ill prisoners, most states have not. This is significant for many reasons, one of which is that estimates of the incidence of serious mental illness in prisoners range from 20% to 40% and growing.11,12 We may assume that over-represented in this population are prisoners with PTSD, major depression, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia. What is the effect of any length of solitary confinement on persons with these disorders? Mr Raemisch, after 20 hours in solitary confinement, which he knew before hand would both be time-limited and could be terminated at any time, said it was a battle he “would lose.”
All state and federal prisoners have been convicted in a court of law and sentenced to these facilities. The sentence entails a loss of freedom and a loss of certain rights. But the right to be protected from “cruel and unusual punishment” is never lost.13 Solitary confinement for the overwhelming majority of prisoners is not ordered at sentencing. It is non-judicial. It is a second level of punishment wholly administered outside the judicial system. It is unrelated to due process, a trial by one’s peers, the assumption of innocence, the right to council, etc. Solitary confinement for most prisoners, in my opinion, is cruel and unusual punishment. Solitary confinement for prisoners with serious mental illness, in my opinion, is torture.
Solitary confinement literature
Most psychiatrists and other experts working with prison populations have expressed deep concern about the use of solitary confinement with seriously mentally ill prisoners, including excellent reviews by Metzner,14 and Metzner and Fellner.15However, a recent study, flawed in my opinion, deserves comment as it appeared to show no harm associated with solitary confinement for inmates—regardless of whether they were diagnosed with mental illness.16 Coincidentally, it was conducted in Colorado where there is continuing commitment for reform, and at the same facility where Mr Raemisch spent 20 hours in voluntary “administrative segregation.” Furthermore, Dr Metzner and Mr Fellner were co-authors of this recent report, but neither was the lead author.
Study design for this problem is challenging. The logical comparison groups are fellow inmates: those with and without mental illness—subjected to solitary confinement or not. However, that imposes the confounding variable that all subjects are incarcerated whether or not subjected to solitary. Of the 302 inmates in the original study population, 55 either refused to participate or were removed from the study due to behavioral issues. Difficulties with determining subject motivation for participation, and perhaps the skewing of subject responses for the perceived benefit of the investigators cannot be measured.
Lastly, the only measure of psychological distress reported was the Brief Symptom Inventory,17 certainly not comparable to comprehensive psychological or psychiatric evaluations. Of course, no pre-incarceration studies were available either for comparison. Subjects with mental illness subjected to solitary had more difficulty at each measurement interval than their non-solitary comparison groups, but all groups showed diminished symptoms over the one-year duration of the study. The findings could [cynically] be used to argue that all patients could be kept in solitary confinement without concern for psychological harm.
Conclusion
Some detainees in the state and federal prisons have committed crimes that many of us can never forgive. But how we treat such people beyond the loss of freedom and certain rights is entirely about who we are as a society. It is not about them or what they did. It is about us.
The bottom line: solitary confinement is “cruel and unusual.” And solitary confinement for the seriously mentally ill is torture. We don’t subject stray dogs to solitary confinement––because we know it would be unethical. This issue defines who we are as a society. Are we comfortable with that identity? I hope not.
—Douglas A. Kramer, MD, MS
Additional resources from National Public Radio (NPR), 2006-2014
• Mann, B. N.Y. Becomes Largest Prison System To Curb Solitary Confinement. NPR Weekend Edition, February 23, 2014.
• Sullivan, L. In U.S. Prisons, Thousands Spend Years in Isolation. NPR Special Series: Life in Solitary Confinement, July 26, 2006.
• Sullivan, L. At Pelican Bay Prison, a Life in Solitary. NPR All Things Considered, Life in Solitary Confinement, Part I, July 26, 2006.
• Sullivan, L. As Populations Swell, Prisons Rethink Supermax. NPR All Things Considered, Life in Solitary Confinement, Part II, July 27, 2006.
• Sullivan, L. Making It on the Outside, After Decades in Solitary. NPR All Things Considered, Life in Solitary Confinement, Part III, July 28, 2006.
• NPR Staff. Solitary Confinement: Punishment or Cruelty? NPR All Things Considered, March 10, 2013.
• Mann, B. N.Y. Becomes Largest Prison System To Curb Solitary Confinement. NPR Weekend Edition, February 23, 2014.
- See more at: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/forensic-psychiatry/solitary-confinement-it-defines-who-we-are/page/0/3?GUID=54B1CAB2-FD72-42A9-8931-F69A6A94D106&rememberme=1&ts=02082014#sthash.HqLhrxzn.dpuf



Jul 23, 2014

Why are my son's rights being violated and why is he being tortured?

RCW 9A.76.020

Obstructing a law enforcement officer.

(1) A person is guilty of obstructing a law enforcement officer if the person willfully hinders, delays, or obstructs any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.

     (2) "Law enforcement officer" means any general authority, limited authority, or specially commissioned Washington peace officer or federal peace officer as those terms are defined in RCW 10.93.020, and other public officers who are responsible for enforcement of fire, building, zoning, and life and safety codes.

     (3) Obstructing a law enforcement officer is a gross misdemeanor.

9A.76.027
Law enforcement or corrections officer engaged in criminal conduct.

RCW 9A.76.023 and 9A.76.025 do not apply when the law enforcement officer or corrections officer is engaged in criminal conduct.
[1998 c 252 § 3.]











There is no planned release date....


Planned release date is subject to change. If a person is not sentenced on all charges the Planned Release Date will reflect the last release date known.

Yakima Municipal Court docket
4Z0363205Murphy, Isaac ScottDefendantCriminal Non-Traffic08-19-1408:30 AM2

His next court date is almost a month away...So much for speedy trial rights...My brain damaged son (brain damaged by psychiatric drugs used off-label) has no clue WHY he is in jail...I believe he was incarcerated to prevent me from giving him a telephone so he could call for help, or call ANYONE he actually knows...That, and the fact that the evidence of his torture as a child is being considered in an International Court on torure in the United States.




Apr 29, 2014

Annual Protest of the American Psychiatric Association May 4, 2014, NYC


Invitation to the Annual Protest of the American Psychiatric Association May 4, 2014, NYC


By Lauren10e  |  Posted April 27, 2014  |  New York

#StopPsychAssault; #FreeJustina; and #StopMurphyBill: 

MEDIA ADVISORY 
April 26, 2014 

Contact: Lauren Tenney, PhD, MPhil, MPA, Psychiatric Survivor 
Phone Number (516) 319-4295 
https://www.facebook.com/events/246150788902655/. 
https://www.facebook.com/events/624125897669908/ 

WHO: People everywhere. MindFreedom International and the Law Project for Psychiatric Rights (PsychRights®) 

WHAT: Annual Protest of the American Psychiatric Association’s Annual Meeting and the #StopPsychAssault; #FreeJustina; and #StopMurphyBill Twitter campaigns 

WHERE: Behind the barricades on the Corner of 34th Street and 11th Avenue, NYC, NY (Across the Street from the Jacob Javits Convention Center) on the Internet. 

WHEN: May 4, 2014 @ NOON 

WHY: An invitation to protest the American Psychiatric Association. Everyone is at risk. 

James B. (Jim) Gottstein, Esq., President/CEO of the Law Project for Psychiatric Rights, is traveling from Alaska to attend the protest in New York City on May 4, 2014. Gottstein stated: "Psychiatry is a morally and scientifically bankrupt enterprise causing great harm and must be held accountable." 

Al Galves, PhD and Board member of MindFreedom International stated: 
“If you believe, as I do, that our mental health system is hurting rather than helping people who are going through hard times, then the place to protest is at the annual convention of the people who control mental health treatment in our country – the psychiatrists.” 

Dorothy Dundas, who is affiliated with National Coalition for Mental Health Recovery,and the creator of the “Behind Locked Doors” poster, will be traveling from Massachusetts to attend the protest. Dundas stated: “As a survivor of forced shock, seclusion and drugging, the Murphy bill would take us back 30+ years! STOP the Murphy bill!” 

It is crucial that we come together and say #StopPsychAssault, #FreeJustina, and #StopMurphyBill at the Annual Protest of the American Psychiatric Association. If you cannot come to the protest in person, please post your letters of protest on these event pages: 
https://www.facebook.com/events/624125897669908/ and 
https://www.facebook.com/events/246150788902655/. 

Your written protests will be compiled and given to the APA and the MEDIA. 

DETAILS: Photo/Video Opportunities 

SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS: 
MindFreedom International and the Law Project for Psychiatric Rights 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 

MindFreedom International www.MindFreedom.org 
MindFreedom International is a nonprofit organization that unites 100 sponsor and affiliate grassroots groups with thousands of individual members to win human rights and alternatives for people labeled with psychiatric disabilities. 

MindFreedom Goals 
• Win human rights campaigns in mental health. 
• Challenge abuse by the psychiatric drug industry. 
• Support the self-determination of psychiatric survivors and mental health consumers. 
• Promote safe, humane and effective options in mental health. 

MindFreedom Mission Statement 
"In a spirit of mutual cooperation, MindFreedom leads a nonviolent revolution of freedom, equality, truth and human rights that unites people affected by the mental health system with movements for justice everywhere." 

Law Project for Psychiatric Rights www.PsychRights.org 

The Law Project for Psychiatric Rights (PsychRights®) is a public interest law firm whose mission is to mount a strategic legal campaign against forced psychiatric drugging and electroshock in the United States akin to what Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP mounted in the 40's and 50's on behalf of African American civil rights. The public mental health system is creating a huge class of chronic mental patients through forcing them to take ineffective, yet extremely harmful drugs. 

Currently, due to the massive growth in psychiatric drugging of children and youth and the current targeting of them for even more psychiatric drugging, PsychRights® has made attacking this problem a priority. Children are virtually always forced to take these drugs because it is the adults in their lives who are making the decision. This is an unfolding national tragedy of immense proportions. As part of its mission, PsychRights® is further dedicated to exposing the truth about these drugs and the courts being misled into ordering people to be drugged and subjected to other brain and body damaging interventions against their will. 

#FreeJustina http://justiceforjustina.com/ 
Justina Pelletier is but one example of a young person who is currently knapped by psychiatry. Justina is imprisoned in a psychiatric institution and barred access to her family. Justina's family has broken legal gag orders preventing them from speaking about what is happening to Justina, to bring attention to the fact that Justina is being tortured while true medical treatment is being withheld from her. 

#StopMurphyBill Stop the Murphy Bill HR3717 
On a national level, the Murphy Bill, HR3717, if passed, will reverse thirty years of progress in public psychiatric service delivery systems, including wiping out Alternatives, PAIMI (Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness), and instituting a national involuntary outpatient commitment law, ordinarily carried out in racist and classist ways. HR3717 expands forced psychiatry and eliminates choice and informed consent. 

Protest Posters by Lauren Tenney, PhD

Sep 11, 2013

Connecting respectfully with a patient, earning trust are primary professional duties

empathy photo: empathy empathy.jpg

via Medical News:

Psychotic experiences ‘not always pathologic’

a few excerpts:
“In line with the cognitive model of psychosis, the High UE group demonstrates that it may not be the anomalous experiences in and of themselves that are pathological, but one's cognitive interpretation of these aberrant experiences that differentiates between adaptive and pathological progression,” the researchers write in Psychiatry Research.

“In particular, one’s level of certainty in the appraisal of unusual experiences may be more salient in determining the psychopathological relevance of these experiences than their frequency.”

“The association between the interpersonal dimension of schizotypy and well-being is consistent with previous evidence, which indicates that this domain is most closely associated with poor quality of life,” comment the researchers.

“This research may help broaden our understanding of adaptive cognitive interpretations of unusual experiences, which may be applied to the treatment of individuals in the early phases of psychosis.”
read here


A MadMother's analysis:
One's appraisal and interpretation of personal experiences, unusual or not, is influenced by one's interpersonal relationships. How individual family members and members of one's social groups respond and/or react to an individual ALWAYS matters. In the publicly funded social service mental health treatment system, the unusual experiences this article is discussing are commonly "medically treated" automatically due to a belief that such experiences are indicative of the person having a brain disease that must be "medically treated"; or worse, controlled and medically treated under color of law. Failure to mention, or even attempt to explain that social, political and environmental factors influence how the person having the unusual experience even interprets the relevance of the experience, is strange to say the very least. Obviously, how a person interprets unusual experiences helps to determine the relevance of the experiences themselves. Equally obvious, no one has experiences unusual or not that cause others concern in an intrapersonal vacuum.

I would posit that "The association between the interpersonal dimension of schizotypy and well-being is...most closely associated with poor quality of life" because other people's responses, particularly negative ones like fear and revulsion, and other non-supportive biases and beliefs would influence the interpretation of whether or not the experience has psycho-pathological relevance, but also the social and political consequences of sharing that one has unusual experiences with others can literally be fatal.

Sharing that one has such experiences is a risk because mental health advocates, psychiatrists and mental health professionals have been "educating" the general public that these experiences are symptomatic of a person having a genetic, underlying neuro-biological condition, i.e. an incurable brain disease.  Many also claim the hypothetical psychiatric disease prevents a person from realizing they have the disease. Although this hypothetical etiology for psychiatric diagnoses has yet to be empirically validated, it has become the theoretically "Evidence Based" or "Best Practice" foundation for clinical standards of care in widespread use. Indeed, it is the only "help" available to many who seek help; particularly those on Medicaid seeking help from publicly funded mental health clinics. The disease hypothesis is the fraudulent claim underlying billions of dollars of Medicaid Fraud that has been committed; fraud that continues unabated in spite of successful lawsuits and massive penalties being levied. When used in standard clinical practice, this fraudulent claim called "psycho-education;" another tool used to manipulate and control patients in order to maintain treatment compliance, "for their own good."  Successful treatment is redefined to mean compliant with treatment; treatment outcome is not a factor considered when declaring a patient to be successfully treated. 

If one is taught that a psychiatric diagnosis of schizophrenia means the diagnosed person has a brain disease that has no cure, I imagine believing the claim would influence the interpretation of what unusual experiences mean to a person who has the experiences, and to the people who care about them. What I do not understand is how accepting a hypothetical etiology for psychiatric diagnosis on faith, i.e. unsupported by definitive empirical evidence; can conceivably justify the gross Human Rights violations that are common in the mental health treatment system. How any doctor (or anyone else) can believe using coercion and other social control tactics while virtually ignoring the Ethical Guidelines for Informed Consent of the medical profession, i.e.violating a person's Human Rights, can be justified simply by claiming this egregious unethical behavior is motivated by an altruistic intent, escapes me entirely.

That fact that unethical and abusive methods are not only tolerated, but are considered acceptable treatment methods that are commonly used in standard practice, belies the claim that psychiatry is a medical specialty. Coercion, deceit and abuse of power and authority are social and political control strategies, not ethical medical practices and procedures! Bio-medical psychiatry is based upon a yet to be empirically validated hypothesis, and relies on methods of social and political control that violate the Human Rights of psychiatric patients, these practices are accepted and widely used--even Court Ordered without requiring any evidence that meets the Rules of Evidence standard that is legally required for EVERY other type of legal proceeding.

The fact that doctors and other medical professionals use social and political control strategies, does not change the nature of what is being done to people in distress by mental health professionals. Abusive behavior and social control strategies are not magically transformed into acceptable or even ethical behaviors simply because a medical professional exhibits them in a professional capacity acting under color of law. These well known standard practices in all likelihood increase the risk that unusual experiences will be misconstrued by the person having them and by others; and intentionally or not, will exacerbate the person's distress.  These are abusive Standards of Care which erect barriers that inhibit respect, trust and empathy. Without trust, therapeutic relationships are improbable, if not impossible. Lack of positive relationships, further increases a person's risk for experiencing psychopathology (and iatrogenic harm). Whether a relationship is positive or negative is not the sole responsibility of the person in distress, or the helping professional. However, I believe that connecting respectfully with a patient and earning the trust of that patient, particularly one who is in distress, are primary ethical duties of a mental health professional. A professional should never act as if they are due any respect or trust that has not been earned through interaction with the patient in distress; much less, diagnose the person with anosognosia for not blindly trusting their medical expertise, or respecting their medical authority... 

via TheRSA:

Aug 11, 2013

The Foucault Tribunal on the State of Psychiatry

Foucault5.jpg


the Foucault Tribunal took place on 
April 30 to May 3, 1998
at the "Volksbühne" in Berlin, Germany

The Verdict of the Foucault Tribunal
We conclude that, being unwilling to renounce the use of force, violence and coercion, psychiatry is guilty of crimes against humanity: the deliberate destruction of dignity, liberty and life. Most of all through the legal category of "mental patient" which permits a total deprivation of human and civil rights and the laws of natural justice. 

Furthermore, psychiatry cannot pretend to the art of healing, having violated the Hippocratic Oath through a conscious use of harmful drugs, which caused in particular the world wide epidemic of tardive dyskinesia, as well as other interventions which we recognize as tortures: involuntary confinement, forced drugging, four point restraints, electroshock, all forms of psychosurgery and outpatient commitment. 


These practices and ideology allowed the psychiatrists during the Nazi era to go to the extreme of systematic mass murder of inmates under the pretext of "treatment". 


Psychiatry not only refuses to renounce the force it has historically obtained from the state, it even takes on the role of a highly paid and respected agent of social control and international police force over behavior and the repression of political and social dissent. 


We find psychiatry guilty of the combination of force and unaccountability, a classic definition of totalitarian systems. We demand the abolition of the "mental patients" laws as a first step toward making psychiatry accountable to society. To this end, compensation will have to be made for the harms it has done. Public funds must also be made available for humane and dignified alternatives to Psychiatry.



Reasons for the Verdict
The defense speaks of the therapeutic necessity for psychiatric coercion and, if necessary, the use of physical
force. They admit though, that in "good psychiatric institutions" as little coercion as possible is used. Coercion is apparently not therapeutic, rather it is dependent on the type of psychiatry practiced. We condemn all forms of psychiatric coercion as a violation of human rights.


The laws for the mentally ill prescribe psychiatric coercion in the case of danger to oneself or others. In practice this is widely transgressed. The matter is only one of endangerment; no crime has been committed. This means that preventive detention is being practiced.


The defense describes someone as being mentally ill because his ability to help himself is reduced. They believe that he should be relieved of certain societal demands because of impairments in his ability to experience and behave as expected by society.


We are of the opinion that the accepted idea of illness is inadequate. In this case an institution such as a psychiatric hospital cannot offer any assistance.


We are of the opinion that treatment by doctors should only be applied on a voluntary basis.
It is especially dangerous that many judges are biased and that they agree with the expert opinions of the psychiatrists.


Psychiatric survivors have a right to demand financial compensation for any pain and suffering they experienced.

Berlin, 2nd of May 1998

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted
(C) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.