January 12, 2014 at 5:44 am #37700boansParticipant
My first post here. Something in the news has prompted me to join in the discussions here.
I feel really sad for this family. What bothers me the most though is that the unnamed psychiatrist who testified at the coroner’s inquest claims that he didn’t feel he had the power to detain this individual involuntarily. Pretty much anyone I’ve met that has been detained in Australia have told me that psychiatrists have carte blanche to detain anyone, and do so regularly. Had this psychiatrist been honest with his testimony he would have told the coroner that he made a choice not to detain this man, he did have the power to do so. A look at the legislation would confirm this. A tragedy occurred and he wipes his hands of any involvement, despite the family making numerous attempts to obtain help for their loved one.
I’m not advocating for more powers for psychiatrists, in fact believe that they abuse the powers they have as it is. I personally know of people who have been detained for the most minor behavioural infractions. So how is it that in this case he didn’t have the power to detain? The truth is he did.
By claiming that the laws didn’t allow him to involuntarily detain this man, he can now push for more powers for psychiatrists to detain people for “emotional harm”. Something’s not right here, the mental health services have failed to act and a tragedy occurs, and then they use this tragedy to expand their powers?
I hope a journalist picks up on this case and puts forward reasons to have this looked at a little more objectively that the coroner has.
January 20, 2014 at 6:26 pm #37972uprisingParticipant
- This topic was modified 6 years, 9 months ago by boans.
Thanks for the link. It is a sad and disturbing story.
Something’s not right here, the mental health services have failed to act and a tragedy occurs, and then they use this tragedy to expand their powers?
I agree. That doesn’t make any sense at all.
(It reminds me of another psychiatric classic: “The meds aren’t working, therefore you need more meds.”)
It seems like the unnamed psychiatrist in the story was at least partially trying to cover his own backside after the murders. But I was under the impression that psychiatrists in Australia could already pretty much do anything they want to a person. So, what are they trying to gain? Are they trying to be able to order incarceration and/or forced drugging without even having met the victim… I mean patient?
It seems that “serious emotional harm” as a standard would need to rely on testimony from others in a person’s life. I suppose what I am envisioning are phone calls from cross family members leading to the forced drugging of a “loved one”, without the deciding psychiatrist even being expected to meet that person. Am I understanding this correctly?January 20, 2014 at 9:26 pm #37982boansParticipant
It seems that “serious emotional harm” as a standard would need to rely on testimony from others in a person’s life. I suppose what I am envisioning are phone calls from cross family members leading to the forced drugging of a “loved one”, without the deciding psychiatrist even being expected to meet that person. Am I understanding this correctly?
The psychiatrist would still have to personally examine the victim, but the serious emotional harm standard would lend more weight to reasonable grounds for detention. However, as it stands here in Australia what is being done in order to detain people is that the mental health workers are using a corrupt practice known as “verballing”. This is a practice quite often used by police, where false statements are attributed to suspects in order to obtain convictions. Mental health workers have adapted the practice for use in their work.
A couple of personal examples.
When i informed a mental health worker that my mother and father in law lived next door, and that they kept an eye on the property, it was listed on my form for detention that i was “concerned about being observed by neighbours”. A perfectly rational situation that one is being observed by a significant other is transformed into irrational concern about being observed by generalized others and appears as a symptom of paranoia.
I informed the mental health worker that i had been angry with a person who had made some threats to me 4 weeks earlier, on the form this is listed as “thoughts of harming others”. Change the singular to plural, and make a historic event current and you have a reason for detention, ie harm to self or others.
So yes, by verballing statements the mental health workers and psychiatrists have carte blanche to detain anyone they wish. What interested me the most was when i complained about the use of this corrupt practice was that it became apparent that the administrators were fully aware of its use and were not going to do anything about it apart from frustrate any cause of action i had.
There is a specific crime listed in our criminal code that relates to this type of behaviour, ie detention without reasonable grounds, that carries a three year prison term, though after attempting to peruse action it became obvious that it would never be enforced, and that these mental health workers know this.
The protection offered by our laws of reasonable grounds is a farce, they simply fabricate reasonable grounds knowing that when they do it will not be possible to peruse the matter.
- The forum ‘Community’ is closed to new topics and replies.