Thursday, February 27, 2020

Comments by arjan

Showing 7 of 7 comments.

  • A study by Oxford University published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (2009) showed that the risk of violence in schizophrenia diagnosed patients was almost the same compared with the general population. Only when drugs and alcohol abuse were at play, the risk of violent crimes was 1.6x higher.

    The researchers studied the criminal history of 8,000 schizophrenia diagnosed patients and 8,000 of their brothers and sisters and compared it with 80,000 controls from the general population using over 30 years of hospital data and criminal records. The criminal behavior included murder, assault, robberies, arson, sexual crimes, illegal threats and intimidation.

    It may provide evidence that the capacity to do harm to others may not originate from severe mental health issues.

    FBI profiler Mary Ellen O’Toole states the following:

    “O’Toole says that most people who have mental health issues are nonviolent, and further, that mass shootings require the planning and foresight. Perpetrators, she said, “have to think with a certain degree of clarity.” My experience has been, that these are individuals that, if there is a mental health issue, they still are able to function very strategically, and in a very cold-blooded and callous manner. So, mental health is not the problem”

  • Thank you for your comment. In regards to sources, you can find them on and YouTube.

    A part of the story about forced electroshock therapy for an innocent girl is available in the following article. It shows comments from the mother who was long ignored and was only taken serious after she received national media attention.

    The mother currently manages the Facebook of and has published a book about her story.

    In regards to the corruption. The real problem may be very simple: making money on disease creates an incentive for more disease. Chronically ill is most profitable.

    It is a simple reward system. “If you don’t do it, someone else will”. It’s nonsensical to fight corrupt behavior as incidents when the core reward system drives involved parties to promote disease.

    In regards to euthanasia in psychiatry. I have seen people change in psychiatric care, from happy and energetic human beings into zombies in which life appeared to have disappeared. People are being broken in psychiatry.

    I find it very dangerous that psychiatrists have received the ability to end the life of their patients. I can imagine situations in which people could become victim after years of ‘torture’ and most scary is that it will be even more unlikely that they could have received help from media attention, politics or reporting, because it is very difficult for outsiders such as politicians or reporters to interfere and assess a situation when it comes to someones personal choice to end life.

    I believe that patients need protection from within the profession. And while there may be people who truly want to end their life, you cannot ignore the fact that some people are being tortured and broken in psychiatry. They should receive priority because they need protection.

  • Thank you for the link and for your insightful comment!

    I believe that some people may need protection, and if they would, that it may be extra difficult to discover in time on an individual level because they would disappear. When it comes to euthanasia, privacy may be an even more hefty argument to keep outsiders away.

    I personally don’t understand how it could have been allowed. The years leading up to the legislation had seen mainstream media coverage not just about the side effects of antidepressants (increased suicide risk) but also about wrongdoings such as that hundreds of patients were locked in an isolation cell for more than 1 year.

    Dutch politicians and insiders (patient union) stated in TV reports that it was not due to a lack of money or personnel and that they observed that it was caused by the ‘culture’ in psychiatry. Psychiatrists appeared to cultivate a situation of powerlessness so that they could treat patients with lucrative anti-psychotics.

    Mainstream media openly discussed that psychiatry made problems worse.

    The Netherlands also allows involuntary electroshock therapy. It was applied to an innocent girl who’s mother raised the alarm. The girl had received many (invalid) diagnosis and the mother was convinced that a nutrient / food deficiency was the original cause of the issues but psychiatrists ignored her and ultimately demanded forced electroshock. The story was given national attention by celebrity psychiatrist Dr. Bram Bakker. Soon after, the mother was blackmailed by the hospital to take her blog offline under the threat that she was not allowed to see her daughter.

    There were more reports about blackmailing. A Dutch politician (House of Representatives) spoke out about it publicly: “Psychiatry blackmails to hide scandals”.

    The blackmailing was also publicly discussed in mainstream media in the years leading up to the legislation of euthanasia.

    With euthanasia, psychiatry is much stronger in hiding potential wrongdoings.

    While attention is important, it may be best if it doesn’t get to a situation in which the public must decide if it’s acceptable or not. The fact is that people want recognition and euthanasia could be perceived as a social “stamp” that someone has the most serious problems. If it gets attention from a public opinion perspective, it may fuel the demand for such an option.

    Protection may only be possible from within the profession, on the basis of ethics. If euthanasia is not possible, then people may unconsciously be forced to consider that there must be a way out of somehow, which would give specialists options to guide someone to recovery.

  • Thank you for your comment! Hopefully it will help people realize that euthanasia is not the only choice. It may be difficult for some people to look further when a doctor appointed to help them advises euthanasia as a solution.

    People who want to commit suicide may be especially vulnerable. How would they cope with a situation in which a psychiatrist tells them that they can choose euthanasia? The choice could play inside the mind of a person for some time with as logical outcome: “if the option is available, it must be applicable to me”, as a way to prove that their problems are real. They could live to it while an other therapist may have guided the person in a different direction.

  • Thank you for the reply and for the article!

    People with mental problems are vulnerable. When the door for euthanasia is open, a psychiatrist has many options available to guide someone to make such a choice. The step to forced euthanasia is just a tiny step away and a psychiatrist is skillful in verbal manipulation.

    Hundreds of depressed patients in The Netherlands were locked in a stinking isolation cell for more than 1 year time. It included innocent 22 year old girls who spoke of severe damage. If psychiatrists are capable of such, it is only logical that some of those patients may become victim when presented with a choice to end their life as a medical treatment option.

    I hope that your article may help to make people look more critically at practices such as euthanasia within psychiatry.

  • In regards to the relevance of my comment, the “medical murder” during the Holocaust was essentially justified as “involuntary euthanasia”, a medical procedure. The patients were killed both for their own good and for that of the community. It was euthanasia under duress.

    The Dutch guideline that lead to the legalization of euthanasia by a psychiatrist was in 2010. It is almost 10 years later and it may be that the life of about 1000 patients has been ended by a psychiatrist during that time.

    I personally want to maintain respect for people’s will to end their life, of which I cannot judge. But considering the facts, of which the history that is mentioned in this article is a part, I believe that it is irresponsible to allow psychiatrists to apply euthanasia. It doesn’t seem logical or healthy that a ‘doctor’ is committed to ending the life of his or her patients.

  • In The Netherlands psychiatrists have successfully forced legislation to allow them to euthanize their patients when they express an explicit wish to die.

    The official Dutch version of the APA released a guideline that instructed institutions to release their patients with an explicit death wish onto the street, so that they could put an end to their life on the street.

    The head of the employee department of the Dutch rail ways responded with disgust and argued that many of those patients would jump in front of a train, causing trauma to their employees.

    Soon after, politics allowed psychiatrists to euthanize their patients and the numbers have been growing rapidly since with hundreds of people to be euthanized by a psychiatrist each year in the tiny country.

    There are strong indications that psychiatry exacerbates problems and makes them chronic. That makes it ethically irresponsible to allow psychiatrists to use euthanasia, even though there may be situations where people can genuinely choose to end their lives while there is nothing wrong with their body. The fact that – in view of the fierce criticism of psychiatry by many scholars – it cannot be excluded that psychiatry has provided inadequate care or even had a detrimental influence on the opinion and decision-making of an individual, makes it ethically irresponsible to allow psychiatrists to euthanize their patients.

    What good intending doctor could have such a strong will to end the life of their patients?

    A citation from their press release shows their intent:

    “Psychiatrists have hardly any opportunities to help patients with suicide, especially if they have been admitted involuntarily, and have to rely on controversial treatment methods such as several years of isolation cells or electroshock.”

    They presented themselves as sad and powerless victims that were being hurt by the “bad government” that did not allow them to euthanize their patients.

    Many people who now end up in an emergency situation, maybe for years of time, are now being presented with an option to have their life ended by a doctor eager to help them. For some it may be perceived as the only choice.