Sunday, July 5, 2020

Communication breakdown

Home Forums Community Communication breakdown

Viewing 9 posts - 16 through 24 (of 24 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #44356
    boans
    Participant

    It seems fair to assume that for the Chief Psychiatrist to state that my claim the matters listed on the Form 1 are misrepresentations is not supported, he would have examined the relevant documents. These consisted of the Triage notes, the Form 1, and post interview notes all made by the AMHP. I also provided a copy of the information listed above as to why the matters listed where materially affected, and were likely to mislead.

    One method of testing whether the Form 1 matters were likely to mislead is to examine what was done with the Form 1 by others. If they were not misleading, then no one would be mislead by them correct? As a result of a twist of fate an experiment of sorts was conducted that would resolve this matter. The Dr who was meant to do a psychological assessment did not actually do it, and took his information directly from the Form 1. The Consultant Psychiatrist then examined me, made inferences from the Form 1, and then tested them with a psychological assessment.

    Is the Form 1 misleading?

    Dr A, as stated did not do the interview with me. It is clear from the assessment form that he simply copied the matters listed by the AMHP into the appropriate area and then gave a provisional diagnosis. Psychotic, and bi polar disorder. A list of medications was then listed that should be administered should I become agitated. I believe that this was a fair diagnosis given the matters that were listed on the Form 1. Of course Dr A did not have the information about the family conflict because he hadn’t bothered to ask me about anything. If the Form 1 was not misleading one would expect the Consultant Psychiatrist to confirm this provisional diagnosis.

    Dr B, the Consultant Psychiatrist begins his report by drawing a number of inferences from the Form 1. The first words written on the report are Form 1, double underline, and then a list that basically matches the matters listed. He then documents significant matters during the interview. The family conflict etc. In conclusion he writes that he can identify no illness. He also states that he can find no reason to involve police, and that whilst my decision to remove myself from my home may be impulsive, keeping me locked in the hospital against my will was highly likely to make matters worse (prophetic words).

    If the matters listed on the Form 1 were not misleading as the Chief Psychiatrist suggests, then how did I end up with a provisional diagnosis of an illness I did not have? How did a Consultant Psychiatrist make a list of false inferences from the Form 1 that when tested were shown to be false? Both doctors were mislead by the Form, and their reports demonstrate this clearly.

    The Chief Psychiatrist himself has written that “the matters listed on the Form 1 are considered reasonable grounds to detain”. He has also been mislead by the Form 1.

    I have spoken at length with three Consultant Psychiatrists, and two Clinical Psychologists, and all have confirmed that the matters on the Form 1 are “materially affected” and are highly likely to mislead. I have had no one that I have spoken to give any rational explanation of how these maters are not misrepresentations.

    My first two years at University was spent studying Psychology full time. It is patently apparent to me what the AMHP has done, though I did have the advantage of being present during the interview. And as I stated above there were 5 ‘independent’ witnesses to the interview (2 police, 2 other mental health workers, and my wife).

    And despite having access to this information the Chief Psychiatrist maintains that the Form 1 matters are not materially affected, and are not likely to mislead? That my claim is unsupported? Would he care to speak to any of the ‘independent’ witnesses? Examine the reports? Speak to other mental health professionals that have confirmed what I’m saying?

    No.

    Examining the facts wouldn’t suit his preferred outcome. So he ignores the evidence and makes an argument from authority. I hope the reader can see what this man is claiming is ‘professional conduct’. If he is prepared to defend this document as being what his profession is about then I’m afraid that things are worse than we imagined. The AMHP is either totally incompetent, or he has deliberately attempted to deceive anyone examining the document.

    All of the matters add to what is required by the Act in order to detain lawfully. What are the chances of this occurring? If we exclude item #6 “potential for damage to reputation and meaningful relationships” due to it applying to every living person, then the odds are a little over 40 000 to 1. Funny but I have spoken to another person who is a 40 000 to 1 as well. Beyond a reasonable doubt?

    Funny that the only person who can’t see what has been done is the Chief Psychiatrist. I hope he does get some treatment for that blind eye of his. This is absolutely disgraceful behaviour, and certainly makes me question both his honesty and integrity. My position is only unsupported by the one person who it would seem has failed to examine the evidence.

    #45596
    boans
    Participant

    In this post I would like to briefly examine what I can only describe as a turning point for my wife, and the possible thinking of the AMHP for committing the criminal act of having me detained unlawfully. I do not believe that either acted out of evil intent, but were acting in a manner that they thought would resolve the matter in my wife’s preferred manner.

    As I have described above, I had been subjected to three weeks of domestic abuse by my wife’s family. The threat by her meth using nephew to get his friends to home invade and assault me resulted in some defensive preparations by me. This was obviously a concern to my wife, should her nephew and company carry out the threat, I was quite prepared to defend myself with force. When I began loosing sleep and not eating properly I made a decision to leave my home. I did not like having to do this, but it seemed the only method of dealing with the issue. My wife also did not like this and assaulted me with a knife, then requested that I stab her.

    My wife had tried to get me to be counseled on the matter, but from my perspective this was pointless. I believe that she hoped that where she had failed to change my mind about my course of action, perhaps a psychiatrist/psychologist could. It is easy for a person to think that this was an overreaction, when it is not themselves who have been threatened. What was a psychiatrist or psychologist going to do? Convince me that a meth user with a history of home invasion who had made threats wouldn’t carry them out? So I refused to attend the appointments made by my wife to save the hundreds of dollars that this pointless exercise would cost.

    My wife attends the appointment with my psychologist seeking advice. I’m certain that her grief about me leaving and my unwillingness to consult with ‘professionals’ about my decision was the main topic. And I do not feel that my psychologist advising my wife that if she felt I was suffering from a mental illness she should call mental health services was unreasonable. It was quite possibly seen by my psychologist as being one way of having me assessed, and may change my decision to leave. I feel sure that my psychologist would have expected an AMHP to act in good faith (this of course was not the case as I will explain)

    She now has a method of forcing me to do what I refused to do voluntarily. There were a couple of problems with this though, that my wife explained later that were discussed with my psychologist.

    1. If she informed me that she was going to contact mental health services I would simply leave my home before they even arrived. Hence she would fail in her attempt to have me convinced that leaving my home because of the threat was unreasonable.

    2. If she called mental health services whilst I was asleep, and they jumped me while I was asleep and expecting to be home invaded by her nephew and friends I may put up a fight, and the police may shoot me. My wife did tell me that she discussed the possibility of ‘suicide by police’ with my psychologist. Hence she discussed drugging me without my knowledge with my psychologist, and decided that benzodiazepines in my drink would be the best method of stupefying me, and assisting with my detention.

    This was how I was to be forced into discussing my decision with a ‘professional’. She was, as was later described to me “trying to save her marriage”. And I agree with that assessment. We were deeply in love, and it was extremely painful to have to make the decision I did.

    I was drugged without my knowledge and my wife then called mental health services in a “distressed state”. She explained to them about the blackmail, and glossed over the threat by merely saying that her family had taken the side of the blackmailer. This is not unexpected as she wanted them to attend, and explained to me later that in order to do so one has to tell them what they want to hear. So whilst there was some bias in what my wife told them, it was fairly close to what was occurring with the family conflict.

    AMHP attends and I am dragged out of bed in my underwear and searched by police. An interview is then conducted as described above. I am certainly angry with my wife at this point as I was now aware that she had set this situation up with my psychologist the night before.

    The situation regarding the threat and me leaving my home was discussed at length with the AMHP. This is clear from his notes, and is simply excluded from the Form 1 used to detain me. Of course this makes a perfectly rational decision on a course of action appear irrational, and that expressing my intention to defend myself if assaulted as being violent. I have covered how the AMHP “verballed” the Form 1 above.

    It is my belief that the AMHP was thinking about two matters.

    1. That by attending my home and jumping me in the manner they did, that it had made me angry with my wife. Hence the reason that he assumed that my wife was “fearful” of me. Of course my wife knew how much I adored her and that under no circumstances would I ever harm her. I therefore believe that she “said no such thing” to the AMHP. It was a risk that did not exist, but was used in order to detain me.

    2. That the AMHP may have believed that having me assessed by a psychiatrist may change my mind about leaving my home. Thus my distressed wife would not loose her husband.

    This would have been no problem had I agreed to attend the hospital voluntarily. However, I knew that there was nothing wrong with me (as did the AMHP) and I wished to return to my bed as I was tired from the drugging. So, in order to have my wife’s request of a ‘little bit of counseling’ met, the AMHP decided to fabricate the grounds in order to detain me involuntarily. Maybe the psychiatrist can convince me not to leave because of the threat. Can’t do any harm right?

    Now I am told I am being detained under the Mental Health Act and am furious. I am taken by the police to my mother and father in laws garden, searched in front of them and thrown into a police van. They were looking as if I was being carted away for a bank robbery or something. How ironic that the AMHP stated that I had “potential for damage to reputation and meaningful relationships” eh?

    My wife has at this point committed an offense by drugging me without my knowledge (S 305A of the Criminal Code), and the AMHP has committed an offense by detaining me unlawfully (s 336 of the Criminal Code).

    Once at the hospital I am assaulted by a Doctor who does not have the right to physically examine me without consent, and he gives a provisional diagnosis for an illness I don’t have. Further Criminal acts. (Assault, and then destruction of the complaint form I filled out regarding his misconduct)

    As I have explained I was examined by the psychiatrist and he released me, asking that I not return home for a few days because of the anger I was feeling about what had been done to me. I agreed and stayed with a friend, and returned after the weekend, in an absolute rage.

    My anger at this point was certainly directed at the AMHP who I knew had unlawfully detained me, though I was also angry with my wife for calling them in the first place. My wife wanted us to go on our ‘honeymoon’ which had been booked and paid for the next week, and I simply refused.

    My wife made an agreement with the FOI officer at the hospital to deceive me, and the law firm who became involved from being informed of her criminal behaviour. This was another more serious offense, Conspiring to pervert the course of justice which carries a mandatory prison term.

    The turning point came when I exposed both the original crime of drink spiking, and the conspiring to pervert. My anger became focused on my wife. Two criminal offenses, and she had been sabotaging my efforts to have something done about the criminal behaviour of the AMHP. Sure I can look back and say, they were making efforts to “save our marriage”, but it should be added that they had to commit criminal offenses to try and bring about that outcome, and failed miserably.

    It was at this point that my wife decided to flush our marriage down the toilet, and engaged the services of a sociopath. She had gotten deeper and deeper into trouble by becoming involved with these criminals, and her absolute betrayal of me had enraged me. Her actions from this point on could be described as nothing more than vile. Absolutely vile.

    This experience has made me realise the sort of ‘treatment’ that others are being exposed to. Three public officers quite prepared to commit criminal offenses and feel perfectly comfortable that they will not be held to account. And that is the case, they will not be held to account, I mean those crimes were done in order to try and “save my marriage” (the ‘good faith’ defense). The good faith defense can not be used where an act of negligence has occurred. The AMHP was negligent in his duty to complete the Form 1 and “specify the facts” and the FOI officer was negligent in her duty by not informing me of what was required to obtain my documents (S 5 FOI Act). These were crimes plain and simple, and they both know it.

    Glad that mental health services are prepared to commit criminal offenses to “save my marriage” it’s just such a shame that it had the opposite effect. Subjecting me to a ‘psuedo pack rape’ was never really going to get me to change my mind about the very real threat that had been made, and merely gave me reason to be angry with my wife.

    So I understand how you people were mislead into committing these serious criminal offenses, I mean you did have good intentions. Might I suggest that just because the Chief Psychiatrist is turning a blind eye to your criminality that you consider the “potential for harm to self or other” before engaging in such criminal acts. Whilst you may be atheists, it may be worth considering what is ethical and morally right. Once you break the law, your good intentions are simply not an issue, you are a criminal.

    I on the other hand am not an atheist, and look forward to your judgement day, when I believe you will be cast down into the pits of Hell for eternity for the evil you have let loose in this world. Your criminal actions have resulted in the destruction of someones life. And I now know I’m not the only one. Whilst you may be able to hide your crimes from other mortals by deception, fraud and lies, know that their is one who you can not deceive.

    • This reply was modified 5 years, 11 months ago by boans.
    • This reply was modified 5 years, 11 months ago by boans.
    #45899
    boans
    Participant

    I came across this section of a wiki article about involuntary commitment

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_commitment#Australia

    The section of the Mental Health Act of Victoria setting out the requirements for commitment is quoted and then this;

    There are additional qualifications and restrictions but the effect of these provisions is that people who are assessed by doctors as being in need of treatment may be admitted involuntarily without the need of demonstrating a risk of danger. This then overcomes the pressure described above to exaggerate issues of violence to obtain an admission.

    Note that the author recognises that there is pressure to exaggerate issues of violence to obtain admission (ie commit fraud). This is exactly what was done in my case. It is a corrupt practice called “verballing”. “Thoughts of harming others” just don’t mention it was three weeks ago, or that it was one person, who attempted to blackmail my wife, and not “others”.

    The use of a known corrupt practice on a statutory declaration in order to detain someone who is not suffering from a mental illness is a criminal act. Our Chief Psychiatrist would be fully aware of the possibility for this type of corruption, and yet even when presented with irrefutable evidence to demonstrate that a criminal act has occurred, he manages to obfuscate the issue by rewriting the Mental Health Act to exclude the protection.

    This is an absolute disgrace, that a Chief Psychiatrist would refuse to examine evidence in an objective manner because it would expose a criminal under his supervision. And the public trusts this man? How about you do your damn job and clean up the mess you are responsible for, and stop the unnecessary deaths and destruction of peoples lives that are occurring as a result. Or do you hope to hide the fact that you are behaving in such a manner until it becomes someone else s responsibility?

    • This reply was modified 5 years, 10 months ago by boans.
    #45901
    humanbeing
    Participant

    boans

    I admire your ability to speak so clearly and document so precisely what’s happened to you and others down there.

    #45905
    boans
    Participant

    Thanks humanbeing, it means a lot to me that I’m clear about these issues. If the law had been observed then a good mans life would not have been destroyed. Of this I am sure.

    You know after I tried to commit suicide and ended up in the same hospital voluntarily I started to do some checking on this AMHP with other ‘regular’ patients. I heard a few things that gave me some idea of who he was. Certainly he had a reputation as someone who was prepared to tell lies to patients in order to influence outcomes. Slimey, but not criminal. But I knew that this lying behaviour was carried over into committing acts of fraud on documents.

    I spoke to one woman who ten years before had been involuntarily detained by the same AMHP. And I explained to her how he had “verballed” the Form 1 in order to detain me. He had done the same thing to her ten years before. She is an intelligent woman with a private school education, and wealthy parents. Her story was one that fascinated me. Let me say I’m not one for accepting on face value what a person says. I am a fairly good judge of character, and am critical of anything I’m told. I believed this woman. She was subjected to the very same complaints process that I was, delays, obfuscation, and cover up. “Oh, it’s because your ill, and if you keep complaining we will be forced to increase your medication”.

    Her mother had been concerned that she had not been keeping her home clean, and had been seeing a couple too many ‘boyfriends’. So her mother rang mental health services, and the same AMHP who came to my home, went to hers. Not cleaning your house to your mothers standards, and one’s sexual relationships are not really the business of mental health services, but the AMHP “verballed” her up and involuntarily detained her. So they take a young woman who is 5 foot 1 and 50 kilos and lock her in a secure ward with guys who have stabbed security guards when they were psychotic. Three days later she is traumatised by the detention, and is then examined by a psychiatrist. Drugs are administered for the trauma that they have caused and she has a bad reaction to them. Ten years later and she has been on various cocktails of drugs, she is obese, hands shaking all the time, numerous involuntary detentions, won’t speak with her mother, and has not held a job since.

    And this all started because? Certainly this AMHP believes that he has the solution to everybody’s problems in the community, force and coercion and drugs. To me, it would have made sense to perhaps offer some assistance with the cleaning, and a little education on sexually transmitted diseases. I cry when I think about that beautiful young lady being subjected to the brutality of this vile AMHP who is abusing the trust and powers he has been given. He is a danger to the whole community, and has quite possibly contributed to a large number of suicides and destroyed peoples lives because of his delusional belief that everybody is a mental patient,and he can make it all better.

    I don’t know if this makes a lot of sense, but it was quite clear to me that if the situation had been handled by someone who actually gave a damn about people, then this young lady’s life could have been so much better. And her abuser has been handed more and more victims by caring relatives and friends who thought that their loved ones would be looked after during times when they were distressed.

    This particular AMHP is like an abusive priest who is being enabled in his abuse by others who are turning a blind eye to it. It makes me sick to the stomach that those vulnerable people I met are being subjected to this type of abuse. Can’t they see that if they hold this man to account, it will stop others from engaging in these types of abuses? Don’t they realise that accountability actually increases the standard of care being delivered? I guess it’s the path of least resistance, easier to beat the victims into submission that actually put pressure on the ‘staff’ to do the right thing.

    It angers me as you can probably tell, and the only solution I can see is to take these powers away from them. They are not worthy of the trust the community places in them.

    • This reply was modified 5 years, 10 months ago by boans.
    #45907
    humanbeing
    Participant

    What kind of world do we live in? Don’t know if I really want the answer to that. Pretty suicidal today…

    I wish I knew how to make it all better.

    #45910
    boans
    Participant

    I’ve just been following the Anonymous threat to police in Ferguson humanbeing. That gives me hope, that there are people out there that do give a damn and are prepared to do something about the situation.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOSRQ-c1XW0

    Can we take back our communities from thugs and bullies? I hope so for the sake of my grandkids. We the (invisible) people lol.

    • This reply was modified 5 years, 10 months ago by boans.
    #45912
    humanbeing
    Participant

    Saw this story also on Counterpunch; http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/08/14/police-militarism-in-america/

    There are few places left to get real news by real journalists… anonymous! glad to see them on this too. With everyone being spied on in this country (yours too, no doubt) I admire those who have the balls to risk it all to tell the truth.

    I find it harder and harder, tho, to find others who want to HEAR the truth.

    #45914
    boans
    Participant

    Wow, I went to school in London in 1976.

    It was on Portobello Rd and was right in the middle of this.

    http://libcom.org/history/1976-the-notting-hill-carnival-riots

    The police only had dust bin lids to defend themselves and were getting pelted with bricks. It was unbelievable being there. Running battles in the streets. It all seemed to come from nowhere.

    The way that the situation in Syria got out of hand was not dissimilar to this situation in Ferguson.

    I find the idea of cyber warfare really fascinating. Even with the ability to spy on everyone, it won’t do them a lot of good if they get steamrolled lol.

Viewing 9 posts - 16 through 24 (of 24 total)
  • The forum ‘Community’ is closed to new topics and replies.