It is very difficult to win lawsuits about psychiatric malpractice, particularly about forced drugging with antipsychotics.1 One reason is, as lawyer Jim Gottstein, has observed in Alaska,2 and which I have also seen on several occasions, that psychiatrists routinely misrepresent the evidence in court: About how ill their patients are; what wonders they can achieve with antipsychotics; and saying that the patients have tolerated them well, which the patients disagree with.3
When I studied 30 consecutive cases from Denmark3 and 30 consecutive cases from Alaska,4 where the patients had appealed forced treatment orders, I found that the legal procedures were a sham where the patients were defenceless, and that the law had been violated in every single case.
Another reason why lawsuits are difficult to win is that judges have so much respect for authority that they didn’t care the least when I, other expert witnesses, and lawyers for the plaintiffs like Gottstein demonstrated in court that professors of psychiatry and other experts were lying.1,2,5
A third reason why it is so difficult to obtain justice is that Ombudsman and Supreme Court decisions are consistently being ignored.1 In Norway, the Ombudsman concluded in 2018 that forced treatment with an antipsychotic in a concrete case had violated the law.6 The law stipulates that forced drugging can be used when, with “high probability, it can lead to recovery or significant improvement in the patient’s condition, or if the patient avoids a significant worsening of the disease.” Referring to science, the Ombudsman noted that the probability of achieving the intended improvement is very low.
Despite the Ombudsman’s ruling, the unethical practice just continued. It is therefore very significant, also in an international context, that four court cases in Norway—three of them related to antipsychotics—were recently won.
In 2024, I was an expert witness in a lawsuit against the Norwegian State at the Oslo District Court.5 It was lost because of an incompetent judge, but the Court of Appeal, which corresponds to the Superior Court in other countries, ruled in 2026 that the human rights were violated when Inger-Mari Eidsvik was subjected to forced treatment with antipsychotics and in a case of solitary confinement.
It had been very difficult to get there. Inger-Mari’s lawyers had been fighting pro bono for over three years for the right to sue the state for multiple violations of the European Convention on Human Rights, the UN conventions, and the Norwegian Constitution. After having lost in two inferior courts, they won at the Supreme Court and were allowed to go ahead with the first case ever to challenge coercive treatment in psychiatry.
I describe here three other Norwegian cases. I met the three women involved at the Mad in Norway film festival in September 2026 where my filmmaker and I showed our documentary, “The Illusion of Psychiatry.”7 My account is based on court documents and personal information.
Helen Wesnes
Helen’s story is so gruesome that it is hard to believe that this could happen in a civilised country. She was sexually assaulted in her late teens and struggled with insomnia and nightmares. In the end, she agreed to a two-week stay at a psychiatric hospital, which a psychologist had suggested.
Two weeks turned into nine years. Helen spent nine years continuously in Reinsvoll Hospital from 2000 when she was only 20 years old. NINE YEARS!
Then, from 2009 to 2015, she stayed at an assisted living residence where she was subjected to forced medication. In total, she was under forced treatment for 15 years.
From day one, she was put on an antidepressant, and shortly thereafter she also received antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, an antiepileptic, a stimulant, and lithium. She was misdiagnosed with hebephrenic schizophrenia, but lithium doesn’t work for schizophrenia.8,9 It was also medical malpractice to treat Helen with Leponex (clozapine) and Abilify (aripiprazole) simultaneously. National10 and international guidelines recommend against using two antipsychotics at the same time and there are very good reasons for this. The benefit is not increased by increasing the dose11 but the risk of death from these highly toxic drugs is of course dose-related.12
Leponex is a particularly toxic drug, which is not more effective than other antipsychotics,8 and, according to an expert testifying in court, it should never have been used. It is not a first-line drug but was initiated without any consultation with other clinicians.
Moreover, antipsychotics have no effect on traumas, and they caused extensive harms. Helen suffered from drooling, incontinence, substantial weight gain, mental dullness, cognitive decline, low blood pressure, and syncope.
Initially, she received psychotherapy, which proved beneficial. But when her therapist was transferred to another department, it was discontinued and her condition deteriorated markedly. The expert considered that if Helen had received psychotherapy instead of antipsychotics, she would likely have been well after a year instead of her spending 15 years under unbearable conditions.
In 2001, Helen informed her psychiatrists that she had been sexually assaulted and that this had caused her mental health challenges. Nevertheless, no assessment or treatment for trauma was initiated and she was deprived of her freedom for 15 years.
Helen’s fight for justice started in 2016 and it isn’t over yet. At first, the Norwegian System of Patient Injury Compensation (NPE) and the Patient Injury Board concluded that she was not entitled to compensation because she had not sustained an injury resulting from a failure, inadequate treatment, or negligent treatment.
In 2022, Helen filed a writ of summons against the State asking for compensation because of her suffering resulting from violation of fundamental human rights. Shortly before the case was due to go to trial, the proceedings were halted because Helen and her lawyer found out that the NPE had failed to obtain the nursing records from Reinsvoll Hospital. As a result, NPE reopened the case, and, without going to court, Helen was awarded NOK 7,790,000 in 2024 for loss of earnings and permanent injury from the treatment, as well as NOK 33,207 to cover legal costs.
Helen’s lawyer took legal action against NPE because they disagreed with the NPE’s assessment of the extent of her loss of earnings, as well as the severity of the physical and psychological harm she suffered because of the treatment. That part of the case is scheduled to be heard by the District Court in February 2027.
In 2026, the District Court awarded Helen NOK 4,500,000 as compensation due to violation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)13 articles 3, 5 and 8, plus NOK 1,179,375 in legal costs. The part of the case against the Norwegian State concerning a claim for compensation for lost income is still being considered by the District Court. Conversely, the State appealed the verdict in September 2026 to the Superior Court claiming that the District Court failed in assessing the evidence and in the way it used the law.
I don’t think the State will prevail, as the case is very clear. The District Court’s verdict is unusually harsh. The assessment and diagnosis of Helen did not live up to medical standards—it was not even possible to trace how the first diagnosis, schizoaffective disorder, was reached. Senior Consultant Jan Wollenberg apparently did not consult with other clinicians who knew Helen better than he did to discuss his diagnosis.
The diagnosis of hebephrenic schizophrenia was also wrong, and the Court ruled it was unjustified to use forced treatment because Helen did not suffer from a serious psychiatric disorder. However, in just three years, she was mechanically restrained 67 times with belts for a total of 153 hours.
Helen was subjected to medical treatment in violation of Article 3 of the ECHR (Prohibition of torture) and to unlawful deprivation of liberty, in violation of Article 5 (Right to liberty and security).
The way Helen was treated was extremely inhumane and unprofessional. When the nurses suspected that she was hiding tablets or spat them out, it was decided that she would be observed for 30 minutes after receiving her medication, to ensure she took it. The staff even checked her oral cavity to confirm that it had been swallowed.
Helen suffered from tremors caused by the antipsychotics and the staff observed that when she tried to take photographs, it took a long time to get the camera into focus because her hands shook so severely. The verdict noted that she, incidentally, is an exceptionally good photographer.
Tests of Helen’s serum levels revealed very high concentrations of medication. Nevertheless, no adjustments were made to the dosage even though it was clear that she was a slow metaboliser. This was serious medical malpractice. Evaluations and dose adjustments were carried out to a very limited extent despite the fact that she experienced serious harms and showed very few signs of improvement. The court found that this constituted degrading treatment and was a violation of Article 3 (Prohibition of torture).
Helen was denied contact with the outside world to such an extent that it constituted a violation of Article 3, or alternatively Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life). No one at the ward was allowed to talk to her about difficult topics, which is terribly inhumane and reduces the chance of recovery because having relationships are very important for recovery.8 Her primary contact person instructed her to put all painful thoughts and feelings into an imaginary box.
Helen had nothing to occupy her time and was only permitted to use photography equipment and a PC for short periods. Restrictions were also placed on her ability to keep a diary or write other texts, which made it difficult for her to engage in correspondence. She was allowed to write only for short periods during the day, and she could only receive visits from her family for 30 minutes, with staff present, which resulted in their conversations being largely superficial.
Allegedly, the rationale for the restrictions was that she became agitated by too much stimulation. I am convinced that the little contact she had with other people reminded her of what life was about before she ended up in a psychiatric ward and that it was therefore a natural reaction that she became “agitated” afterwards. Most people would have reacted the same way.
Helen was not permitted to have a mobile phone and was allowed to use a computer and photography equipment for only one hour (30 minutes per shift). On one Christmas Eve, she could visit her parents’ home for an hour and a half, accompanied by staff. When her grandmother died, she was permitted to attend the church service for the funeral but was not allowed to join the family gathering that followed. Helen’s mother was instructed to avoid physical contact with her daughter and was not permitted to massage her.
In 2005, Helen was forbidden to use photography and recording equipment within the ward or on the hospital grounds, which was particularly demeaning because photography was a passion for her and she was always careful regarding what she chose to photograph.
The restrictions constituted an interference with Helen’s right to family life, in violation of Article 8, and considered as a whole, including her inability to write freely, the restrictions also constituted degrading treatment under Article 3, which is about torture.
During the court case, Helen declined to grant a general waiver of the duty of confidentiality for staff at Reinsvoll. The State argued that since she had failed to fulfil her duty to provide information, any uncertainty regarding the evidence must be resolved to her detriment.
However, Helen had said that the State could conduct interviews with current or former employees at Reinsvoll, if she herself was present, which the State deemed unacceptable.
The reason why Helen declined to grant a general waiver is that she distrusted the authorities, which she had all the reason in the world to do given her experiences.
On two occasions, Helen was subjected to violence by fellow patients. The failure to prevent the violence and the insufficient follow-up care she received after the incidents constituted a violation of Article 3, or, alternatively, Article 8. On one occasion, a fellow patient struck her repeatedly—completely unprovoked—and grabbed her by the throat. This was in the ward’s common areas, at a time when no staff were present. Helen feared for her life and found the incident deeply traumatic. A psychiatrist described the event as extremely serious, noting that the outcome could have been dire had no one intervened.
There were plans to reduce Helen’s Leponex dosage but due to increasing agitation triggered by another attack by a patient during hospital activities it was decided to halt the tapering process. Thus, Helen was punished twice, and the follow-up care she received following these two incidents—or rather the lack thereof—was poorly documented. She was not permitted to speak with anyone about the attacks.
Helen was drugged till 2014. She fought for a long time to have the Leponex dosage reduced because she had become severely ill from its harms. However, she was only allowed very minor dose reductions. In the end, she withdrew from Leponex herself, very quickly, in a few steps, and came off the medication within a few months. During the tapering, she developed severe insomnia and needed to go to Reinsvoll Hospital for help. It was only then that the medical staff realised she had been misdiagnosed and subjected to inappropriate treatment.
The hospital discontinued the remaining medications more or less cold turkey, over a period of only 10-14 days, after which she was sent home. This was serious medical malpractice. Withdrawal symptoms include akathisia, which increases the risk of suicide markedly.8 Helen became extremely ill and was hospitalised with severe withdrawal symptoms that lasted several months.
Hilde Marie Rekstad
Marie suffered from depression and anxiety and got the diagnosis atypical bipolar disorder. Much later, she questioned the diagnosis because she didn’t feel bipolar and it was made without adequate assessment.
Her psychiatrists never asked her how she was doing or why she was depressed. They interpreted it as a biological disorder because her paternal grandfather had been diagnosed sometime in the 1940s. Marie did not dare tell them that her marriage was unhappy because she was afraid of losing her children. The erroneous biomedical interpretation had major consequences both for her and her children.
Marie received electroshocks and large amounts of antidepressants, antipsychotics, lithium, antiepileptics and benzodiazepines and became intoxicated. When she complained about this, her psychiatrists refused to examine her and said she did not have insight into her disease. One of the kidneys and the parathyroid glands were affected but she was sent home from the hospital in very bad shape.
She saved her life by fleeing abroad and by not telling anyone that she was a psychiatric patient, which had the result that she was properly examined.
She received large doses of lithium for 14 years and developed kidney damage, which is a well-known harm and a reason why serum concentrations of lithium should be measured regularly. However, her general practitioner had forgotten about her and therefore hadn’t done this. Marie complained to the Norwegian System of Patient Injury Compensation (NPE).
They rejected her complaint. Unnamed sources have revealed that this authority has been instructed to reject virtually all claims about economic compensation for medical malpractice. This could very well be true because, if the authority took the complaints seriously and awarded compensation when it was justified, the number of complaints and awards would explode because malpractice is very common in psychiatry.2,8
The arguments from the authority were unconvincing and Marie’s lawyer appealed the verdict, as he found errors both in the way the law had been used and in the assessment of the evidence. In 2016, the verdict was rejected by the County Governor (Fylkesmannen) who concluded that the general practitioner had violated the law and had not lived up to the expected professional standard.
Marie came on disability pension and lost 14 years to psychiatry. But after she decided to come off the drugs, she got her life back and started working again. She wrote a moving book about her experiences.14
In 2021, Marie received NOK 3,287,454 for loss of income, NOK 15,000 for injuries, and NOK 31,969 for legal costs from the NPE.
Helena Münster
In May 2026, the District Court ruled that the requirements for continued compulsory mental health care were not met for Helena’s 29-year-old son.
Her son was diagnosed with ADHD in 2008 but both he and his mother believe that he has Asperger’s syndrome, currently called autism spectrum disorder. In 2021, he underwent an assessment at Akershus University Hospital, which concluded that he, with a “high probability” had autism spectrum disorder. However, in March 2026, the same hospital concluded that he did not meet the criteria for this diagnosis. They gave him the diagnosis hebephrenic schizophrenia and started treatment with Leponex.
Because his psychotic symptoms were substance-induced, there was uncertainty regarding the diagnosis, but the Court found it likely that he had autism spectrum disorder. The Court noted that symptoms and characteristics specific to schizophrenia and autism spectrum disorders can overlap and that individuals with autism spectrum disorders have an increased risk of developing psychotic symptoms.
The Court also noted that he was not medication-free during the observation period and he used psychoactive substances, amphetamines and cocaine, which supported the Court’s view about uncertainty regarding the diagnosis.
Indeed. I have argued that it should be made illegal to diagnose people while they are under influence of psychoactive substances because it is impossible to know if what is being observed are just harms of the drugs or some serious mental disorder.
The Court considered it uncertain whether his symptoms were of such nature and extent that they constituted a serious mental disorder within the meaning of the law and could justify forced treatment.
Furthermore, no improvement had been observed due to the compulsory treatment; on the contrary, as his mother and maternal grandmother explained in court, his condition had worsened significantly. He had become listless, slept a great deal, was depressed, and had gained a substantial amount of weight. His family explained that he previously took an interest in exercise, but that he was now devoid of energy, passive, depressed, and apathetic, and that his life lacked any meaningful content. He himself stated that, during his stay at Akershus, he had resorted to substance use in order to manage daily activities, such as getting out of bed and showering.
The Court found that the use of coercion could not continue and that compulsory treatment was clearly not the best solution for him. He found the coercion highly distressing; had lost trust in the system; was physically severely affected by drug harms; and experienced a loss of autonomy, which prevented him from engaging in meaningful activities such as exercise, walking in nature, and having contact with his family.
The Court considered that the dubious diagnosis, hebephrenic schizophrenia, prevented him from receiving the appropriate help—namely, cognitive behavioural therapy. The Court agreed that treatment with Leponex had left him so devoid of energy that he felt compelled to resort to substance use just to manage ordinary daily activities.
The State’s arguments were pathetic. They asserted that he had hebephrenic schizophrenia, even though substance abuse can cause psychosis, and claimed that he had improved on Leponex, according to the clinician in charge, ignoring that clinicians have a huge conflict of interest when asked if a patient has improved on their toxic drugs.
Helena told me that her son’s psychiatrist who was responsible for the compulsory treatment had said that he had observed a positive effect from the antipsychotics, and even though Helena had repeatedly cried out about how destructive the drugs had been, he had continued to maintain his position.
Like this psychiatrist, the State also resorted to wishful thinking, “There must be scope for further improvement,” and postulated that little weight could be given to Helen’s son’s own account because he lacked insight into his illness and also lacked the capacity to consent.
He surely had the capacity to consent. He was well-informed about medications, wanted to be helped, and had a reasonably realistic understanding of his situation.
The Court did not agree that a significant improvement had occurred or that there was evidence to suggest a potential for further improvement. He had been treated for 2-3 months, without any significant improvement having been demonstrated.
His poor level of functioning was reinforced by his demeanour in court. He fell asleep while sitting in the courtroom and had to leave the proceedings to sleep in his car. During his testimony, he appeared emotionally blunted and disengaged.
He had been treated with antipsychotic medication over a long period without any significant positive effect being demonstrated, and several different types of antipsychotics had been tried, each type used for a relatively short duration.
It is bad medicine to switch drugs because there is no evidence that it is beneficial. In psychiatry, switching to another drug from the same class, adding another drug from the same class, or adding a drug from another class, does not result in better outcomes.15
Conclusions
I think my account speaks for itself. We look back in horror at the mistreatment of psychiatric patients in the asylums in the last century, e.g. with insulin coma therapy, lobotomy, shock therapy with electricity or drugs causing horrible fractures, deep sleep lasting for days or weeks, and electric shocks and emetics against homosexuality.
What few realise is that in 50-100 years from now, people will look back in horror and will not understand why we allowed psychiatrists to kill many of their patients with drugs that provided no meaningful benefit and caused permanent brain damage in many of them.2,8
Antipsychotics are so toxic that they double mortality.16 Psychiatry is the only medical specialty where the doctors can kill their patients with a drug, which the patients begged them not to use, with impunity.
Shouldn’t we leave a better legacy than this?
We must push for additional lawsuits to make psychiatry less harmful than it currently is. I am proud of the four brave Norwegian women who challenged a deeply unjust and inhumane system with tremendous power at its disposal and won.
***
References
1 Gøtzsche PC. Why lawsuits about psychiatric malpractice are difficult to win. Brownstone Journal 2025;Nov 6.
2 Gøtzsche PC. Deadly psychiatry and organised denial. Copenhagen: People’s Press; 2015.
3 Gøtzsche PC, Sørensen A. Systematic violations of patients’ rights and safety: Forced medication of a cohort of 30 patients. Ind J Med Ethics 2020;Oct-Dec;5(4) NS:312-8.
4 Tasch G, Gøtzsche PC. Systematic violations of patients’ rights and safety: forced medication of a cohort of 30 patients in Alaska. Psychosis 2023;15:145-54.
5 Gøtzsche PC. Psychiatric patient won a forced treatment case against the Norwegian State. Mad in America 2026;March 12.
6 Gøtzsche PC. Forced drugging with antipsychotics is against the law: decision in Norway. Mad in America 2019;May 4.
7 Gøtzsche PC, Bang J, Schwensen E. The illusion of psychiatry. Documentary film, presented at the Mad in Norway film festival 24 Sept 2026.
8 Gøtzsche PC. Is psychiatry a crime against humanity? Copenhagen: Institute for Scientific Freedom; 2024 (freely available).
9 Leucht S, Helfer B, Dold M, et al. Lithium for schizophrenia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;10:CD003834.
10 Vejledning om behandling med psykofarmaka af voksne med psykiske lidelser og adfærdsforstyrrelser. VEJ nr 9697 af 10/09/2024.
11 Samara MT, Klupp E, Helfer B, et al. Increasing antipsychotic dose for non response in schizophrenia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;5:CD011883; Davis JM, Chen N, Glick ID. A meta-analysis of the efficacy of second-generation antipsychotics. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2003;60:553-64.
12 Hallas J. Brug af flere antipsykotika samtidig og risikoen for død. Ugeskr Læger 2007;169:618; Gøtzsche PC. Polyfarmaci med antipsykotika øger dødeligheden. Ugeskr Læger 2016;178:397.
13 European Convention on Human Rights. Rome 1950;Nov 4.
14 Rekstad HM. Ellers får du klare deg selv. Når følelser blir behandlet som sykdom. Calidris forlag; 2025.
15 Gøtzsche PC. Critical psychiatry textbook. Copenhagen: Institute for Scientific Freedom; 2022; Santaguida P, MacQueen G, Keshavarz H, et al. Treatment for depression after unsatisfactory response to SSRIs. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 62. (Prepared by McMaster University Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. HHSA 290 2007 10060 I.) AHRQ Publication No.12-EHC050-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2012:April; Rink L, Braun C, Bschor T, et al. Dose increase versus unchanged continuation of antidepressants after initial antidepressant treatment failure in patients with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind trials. J Clin Psychiatry 2018;79;17r11693; Samara MT, Klupp E, Helfer B, et al. Increasing antipsychotic dose for non response in schizophrenia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;5:CD011883.
16 FDA package insert for Risperdal.
