There is the opportunity for people to protest psychiatry next Sunday in New York City. https://www.facebook.com/events/246150788902655/ If you agree with Ted and can get to New York City that is a way to show it.
Super, Nev.
This is very important. I thought I would also mention that PsychRights has posted numerous articles on a variety of topics under the fair use provisions of the copyright laws. http://psychrights.org/Research/Digest/Researchbytopic.htm
Hi Cindy,
Thanks for taking the time to give me your very clear opinion.
Challenging the docs on the basis of Daubert is certainly possible. In fact, I have been successful in preventing at least one psychiatrist from giving such “expert” testimony, but he was allowed to testify as to his “clinical experience.” We need the ability to bring real legal firepower to the effort.
Hi Donna,
Dr. Insel also recently said that something other than the drugs should be tried for many people.
I agree that we should be fighting the bogus psychiatric system, which is what I think I am trying to do. However, as I just said to CopyCat, we really need to raise some money to hire more attorneys because I just can’t do enough by myself.
I will put you in the no column because you think I should spend my time on something else. One of the things I really need to do is raise a substantial amount of money to get some help, but I keep doing the litigation instead.
I may be getting to the point where I just have to accept that I have to concentrate on raising money.
Hell yes to the hell yes, but no to the double counting.
Thank you for your very kind words, Peter.
I am putting you down as a yes.
Hi Merganser,
It is legitimate point of view that to engage on the basis I am suggesting somehow legitimizes the idea of forced psychiatry. Tina Minkowitz, who has a number of posts on Mad In America takes that position and I respect it.
However, I also think that people’s constitutional rights ought to be respected.
Thanks Duane. I will put you in the yes column.
The quality of representation is a big problem. From my perspective it is pretend representation. I think it is a violation of their professional responsibility and have long contemplated filing something with the bar association about it. I am getting closer. One of the considerations in filing a petition to get the Supreme Court to take the case is it takes time away from such other work.
Thanks MadInCanada. I am going to put you in the yes column, meaning you think we should ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case.
There is the opportunity for people to protest psychiatry next Sunday in New York City. https://www.facebook.com/events/246150788902655/ If you agree with Ted and can get to New York City that is a way to show it.
Super, Nev.
This is very important. I thought I would also mention that PsychRights has posted numerous articles on a variety of topics under the fair use provisions of the copyright laws. http://psychrights.org/Research/Digest/Researchbytopic.htm
Hi Cindy,
Thanks for taking the time to give me your very clear opinion.
Challenging the docs on the basis of Daubert is certainly possible. In fact, I have been successful in preventing at least one psychiatrist from giving such “expert” testimony, but he was allowed to testify as to his “clinical experience.” We need the ability to bring real legal firepower to the effort.
Hi Donna,
Dr. Insel also recently said that something other than the drugs should be tried for many people.
I agree that we should be fighting the bogus psychiatric system, which is what I think I am trying to do. However, as I just said to CopyCat, we really need to raise some money to hire more attorneys because I just can’t do enough by myself.
In terms of an overall approach, you might be interested in my talk at NARPA last September on the Role of Litigation in a Strategic Approach to Mental Health System Change, http://youtu.be/19ER-rgYNuM. There is also a written piece from 2005 that has a lot of the same concepts. http://psychrights.org/Education/Alternatives05/RoleofLitigation.pdf
Hi Copy Cat,
I will put you in the no column because you think I should spend my time on something else. One of the things I really need to do is raise a substantial amount of money to get some help, but I keep doing the litigation instead.
I may be getting to the point where I just have to accept that I have to concentrate on raising money.
Hell yes to the hell yes, but no to the double counting.
Thank you for your very kind words, Peter.
I am putting you down as a yes.
Hi Merganser,
It is legitimate point of view that to engage on the basis I am suggesting somehow legitimizes the idea of forced psychiatry. Tina Minkowitz, who has a number of posts on Mad In America takes that position and I respect it.
However, I also think that people’s constitutional rights ought to be respected.
Thanks Duane. I will put you in the yes column.
The quality of representation is a big problem. From my perspective it is pretend representation. I think it is a violation of their professional responsibility and have long contemplated filing something with the bar association about it. I am getting closer. One of the considerations in filing a petition to get the Supreme Court to take the case is it takes time away from such other work.
Thanks MadInCanada. I am going to put you in the yes column, meaning you think we should ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case.