the state of Beyond Meds
2 days ago
Wednesday, 8 April 2009
Monday, 30 March 2009
foals
Inisheer (Induc) with his mom Inosta (Caprimond - Consul, Trakehner)
Lord Tennyson (Mago) with his mom Lorna Doone (Tshainik - Sif, Thoroughbred)
Lord Tennyson on his own
Lorna Doone with her mom Fantasia Ligré (Sif - Forethought, Thoroughbred)
Marco with - yes, it's a goat. But it's not his mom!!!
Lord Tennyson (Mago) with his mom Lorna Doone (Tshainik - Sif, Thoroughbred)
Lord Tennyson on his own
Lorna Doone with her mom Fantasia Ligré (Sif - Forethought, Thoroughbred)
Marco with - yes, it's a goat. But it's not his mom!!!
Sunday, 29 March 2009
Don't
Three video clips about the real violence - and some thoughts about delusions.
Something I notice, again and again, is that more often than not it is people, who've experienced the violence close up themselves, who've experienced it in a very concentrated form, who achieve an awareness and an understanding of it, like Derrick Jensen or R.D. Laing for instance have achieved it.
It really seems, that one has to get to a point where it becomes unbearable, before one has the courage to let go of all the delusions and to face reality. And the more I think abut it, the more it seems to me, that working in the mh system actually is the ultimate protection against having to face reality and having to let go of the delusions. Unconsciously as close to enlightenment as one possibly can get without actually achieving it. And at the same time, consciously, light years away from it. The ultimate insanity: normality.
Something I notice, again and again, is that more often than not it is people, who've experienced the violence close up themselves, who've experienced it in a very concentrated form, who achieve an awareness and an understanding of it, like Derrick Jensen or R.D. Laing for instance have achieved it.
It really seems, that one has to get to a point where it becomes unbearable, before one has the courage to let go of all the delusions and to face reality. And the more I think abut it, the more it seems to me, that working in the mh system actually is the ultimate protection against having to face reality and having to let go of the delusions. Unconsciously as close to enlightenment as one possibly can get without actually achieving it. And at the same time, consciously, light years away from it. The ultimate insanity: normality.
Saturday, 28 March 2009
"Look, even the mentally ill themselves do believe in it!"
This is something, I think I'll never quite get:
Once more, I got into a, luckily very short, but nevertheless, discussion with a person, who identifies as, well, yeah, a consumer, suffering from "manic depression", and, of course, the pills were no less than godsend.
The discussion: Danish psychiatry has made a film, Åbenhed gør stærk - om skizofreni i familien (Strength through openness - about schizophrenia in the family) technically, formally, obviously very much like Daniel Mackler's Take These Broken Wings - cross cutting between sequences of interviews with respectively two young people, Helle and Emil, labelled with "schizophrenia", their relatives, some friends, and, of course, professionals, especially one consultant psychiatrist from the OPUS-project. In regard to the "message" on the other hand, the Danish film, not surprisingly, tells the opposite of what Daniel Mackler's film tells. "Schizophrenia" is a chronic biological brain disease, due to defective genes, that cause abnormalities in brain structure, and the best treatment option is lifelong medication with "antipsychotics".
And the family? Well, it's important to assure the relatives, that it is not their fault. It's all just defective genes. But, of course, it is also very important to involve the relatives, and psycho-educate them - about biological brain diseases, what else?! - so that they can support "treatment" compliance. And when all this is in place, voilà, what a success story! Never mind, that one of the two young people in the film is in need of assisted housing, as she can't take care of herself due to the drugs' side effects. And never mind, that both face a future on disability, and dependent on the system for the rest of their, approximately 25 years shorter than average, life.
Now, during the past couple of weeks I've noticed numerous hits on my Danish blog, search terms "film about schizophrenia", and since I imagine, that it is the above described botched job people are looking for, and not necessarily Daniel Mackler's or Leo Regan's film, I combed the net for reviews, and wrote my own "not-quite-a-review", always just looking to meet the public's needs and desires... Not-quite-a-review, because I haven't seen the film myself, and I don't intend to, since I won't pay as much as one cent for crap like that. I actually won't give as much as one cent for whatever it might be that supports biopsychiatry. Not if I can help it.
And, yeah, right, I do a hatchet job on the film, slamming its message totally as being oppressive, discriminating, and disempowering, calling the "expert's factual information" for a bunch of lies with no scientific evidence to support it, and the filmmakers for fraudulent when they choose to interview a couple of colonized consumers and their just as colonized relatives, only and solely to, as I see it, give the impression that psychiatry's hopeless message is the one and only truth: "Look, even the mentally ill themselves do believe in it!"
The thing is, that even though the film tries to make the viewer believe, that Helle's and Emil's words are their very own words, they are not. They are the system's words. - Actually, this borders to abuse of these two young people. Colonialism controls, displaces or exterminates the original. In order to exploit. Psychiatric colonialism controls, displaces or exterminates its victims' thoughts, emotions and language in order to exploit its victims' capability to talk, making them repeat its own ideology like a parrot. That. is. abuse.
Well, the pain in the neck I am, I let both the filmmakers, the "expert", and the three people, whose hurrays I've based my own review on, know about it. One of them reacts, so far. The "manic depressive" consumer, I mentioned above. She doesn't react commenting on my blog, but by e-mail. Somewhat resentful at the fact, that not all people agree with her on psychiatry and its pills being a godsend, and that some people dare to question that having insight and being "treatment" compliant would be the road to recovery, as she wants to have it in her review of the film.
Now I wonder: what's in for someone like her, that she defends an industry, that ruins people's lives in droves, just to make a profit? I mean, she doesn't make a profit by doing so, as far as I can see. Apart from the purely idealistic profit of a false ego-identification, that is: "I'm manic depressive! I suffer from a real disease!" Does that rotten ego-identification really mean so much more than the lives of millions of people?? I just can't but keep on wondering...
Once more, I got into a, luckily very short, but nevertheless, discussion with a person, who identifies as, well, yeah, a consumer, suffering from "manic depression", and, of course, the pills were no less than godsend.
The discussion: Danish psychiatry has made a film, Åbenhed gør stærk - om skizofreni i familien (Strength through openness - about schizophrenia in the family) technically, formally, obviously very much like Daniel Mackler's Take These Broken Wings - cross cutting between sequences of interviews with respectively two young people, Helle and Emil, labelled with "schizophrenia", their relatives, some friends, and, of course, professionals, especially one consultant psychiatrist from the OPUS-project. In regard to the "message" on the other hand, the Danish film, not surprisingly, tells the opposite of what Daniel Mackler's film tells. "Schizophrenia" is a chronic biological brain disease, due to defective genes, that cause abnormalities in brain structure, and the best treatment option is lifelong medication with "antipsychotics".
And the family? Well, it's important to assure the relatives, that it is not their fault. It's all just defective genes. But, of course, it is also very important to involve the relatives, and psycho-educate them - about biological brain diseases, what else?! - so that they can support "treatment" compliance. And when all this is in place, voilà, what a success story! Never mind, that one of the two young people in the film is in need of assisted housing, as she can't take care of herself due to the drugs' side effects. And never mind, that both face a future on disability, and dependent on the system for the rest of their, approximately 25 years shorter than average, life.
Now, during the past couple of weeks I've noticed numerous hits on my Danish blog, search terms "film about schizophrenia", and since I imagine, that it is the above described botched job people are looking for, and not necessarily Daniel Mackler's or Leo Regan's film, I combed the net for reviews, and wrote my own "not-quite-a-review", always just looking to meet the public's needs and desires... Not-quite-a-review, because I haven't seen the film myself, and I don't intend to, since I won't pay as much as one cent for crap like that. I actually won't give as much as one cent for whatever it might be that supports biopsychiatry. Not if I can help it.
And, yeah, right, I do a hatchet job on the film, slamming its message totally as being oppressive, discriminating, and disempowering, calling the "expert's factual information" for a bunch of lies with no scientific evidence to support it, and the filmmakers for fraudulent when they choose to interview a couple of colonized consumers and their just as colonized relatives, only and solely to, as I see it, give the impression that psychiatry's hopeless message is the one and only truth: "Look, even the mentally ill themselves do believe in it!"
The thing is, that even though the film tries to make the viewer believe, that Helle's and Emil's words are their very own words, they are not. They are the system's words. - Actually, this borders to abuse of these two young people. Colonialism controls, displaces or exterminates the original. In order to exploit. Psychiatric colonialism controls, displaces or exterminates its victims' thoughts, emotions and language in order to exploit its victims' capability to talk, making them repeat its own ideology like a parrot. That. is. abuse.
Well, the pain in the neck I am, I let both the filmmakers, the "expert", and the three people, whose hurrays I've based my own review on, know about it. One of them reacts, so far. The "manic depressive" consumer, I mentioned above. She doesn't react commenting on my blog, but by e-mail. Somewhat resentful at the fact, that not all people agree with her on psychiatry and its pills being a godsend, and that some people dare to question that having insight and being "treatment" compliant would be the road to recovery, as she wants to have it in her review of the film.
Now I wonder: what's in for someone like her, that she defends an industry, that ruins people's lives in droves, just to make a profit? I mean, she doesn't make a profit by doing so, as far as I can see. Apart from the purely idealistic profit of a false ego-identification, that is: "I'm manic depressive! I suffer from a real disease!" Does that rotten ego-identification really mean so much more than the lives of millions of people?? I just can't but keep on wondering...
Thursday, 26 March 2009
Are psychologists really that stupid?
...Or do they just pretend to be??
Monday evening I came across an article, Aida Husejinovic, "Kognitiv remediation ved skizofreni" (Cognitive remediation for schizophrenia), Psykolog Nyt (the magazine of the Danish Psychological Association), no. 3, p. 20 - 27, where psychologist Aida Husejinovic writes:
"Even if Emil Kraepelin already a hundred years ago became aware of the fact, that cognitive dysfunctionalities are remarkable in patients with schizophrenia, this aspect was assumed to be a side effect of the medication for a long time. Yet, newer evidence points to that cognitive dysfunctionality is a core aspect of the illness, and characteristic for most of the patients." (Op.cit., p. 20)
And further down: "Dysfunctionalities in concentration and memory are regarded biological markers of schizophrenia, since they are detectable long before the onset of the illness, and can be observed in family members of patients with schizophrenia." (Op.cit., p. 20/21)
'There we have it,' I think, looking at this "argumentation" in favor of the biological model. 'The cart put before the horse.' Just as Mary Boyle for instance describes it in her article "The problem with diagnosis", The Psychologist, vol. 20, part 5, May 2007, p. 290 - 292. - An excellent article, by the way, that can only be recommended.
It is totally and completely beyond me how a psychologist can miss the point, that stress, stress, yeah, like in trauma, indeed has the capacity to reduce the stressed individual's cognitive abilities. Dysfunctional communication and abuse create stress. And thus cognitive dysfunctionalities in addition. Which is true for all involved individuals, also family members, who aren't labelled, but who nevertheless do practice dysfunctional behaviors. And it is especially true for individuals who are labelled with "schizophrenia", and who usually have been exposed to huge amounts of stress-creating dysfunctionality. Often throughout their entire childhood and adolescence.
I'd like to see to which extent Aida Husejinovic herself would be able to mobilize her cognitive abilities in a test-situation, where, during the very same testing, someone pointed a gun at her, threatening to shoot her at the first wrong answer she gave. For, this is approximarely the stress level you live with in a dysfunctional, abusive relationship.
In conflict with what Aida Husejinovic seems to regard an almost indisputable basis for her reflections about the cognitive abilities of "patients with schizophrenia", there is increasing evidence from newer research that points to so-called "schizophrenia" being a kind of post traumatic stress reaction. Not a biological brain disease. Cf. Paul Hammersley and John Read's meta study, for example. - But one looks in vain for this kind of references in the article. While, on the other hand, a whole lot of neuro- and biobiobiopsychiatric literature is listed. Of course.
Again I want to emphasize that, while Hammersley and Read - and similar studies - conclude that trauma "only" in about 70 per cent of the cases is demonstrable, they do not take other than physical/sexual abuse into account, thus leaving out verbal and purely psychological abuse, that can "hurt as much as sexual abuse". Furthermore, as they mention themselves, they were not in all investigated cases successful in establishing proof of abuse, because a number of psychiatrized individuals were never asked about their life story by staff. - According to the motto: "Don't ask a question, you know beforehand, you'll not like the answer to!"
Well, and if one wants it even more clearly, just compare the diagnostic criteria for "schizophrenia" with those for PTSD - and get surprised at the resemblance. The difference mainly being that individuals, who get labelled with "schizophrenia" often don't remember the experiences that were traumatizing to them, that they don't remember these experiences as traumatizing, and/or that the environment quite easily can deny the experiences. How convenient! For the abusers.
As Mary Boyle has it so to the point in her above mentioned article: "All scientists aim to identify patterns, or meaningful relationships, in whatever they study. But no aspiring science has ever been successful by asserting at the outset what kinds of patterns it will observe and retaining this belief in the face of decades of unsuccessful research. Yet this is exactly what has happened in psychiatric diagnosis."
Bias has never been the basis for anything but indifference. While indifference is the perfect protection for the abuser.
And apart from the fact that obviously also psychologists, and not just psychiatrists, are big time indifferent toward abuse - in order to protect the abuser-society we live in - they also - for the same reason - are indifferent toward neuroscience. It is no longer an assuption, but a well-proven fact, that neuroleptics cause brain shrinkage in the frontal lobes, the region of the brain where cognition is located. The region of the brain that makes us human beings. The chemical lobotomy. Exactly.
Maybe it is about time for psychology to consider its position in our civilization's war against (human) nature, and state clearly if it is on his clientele's or the abusers' side? Maybe it is about time for psychology to face and recognize the own inner abuser, who speaks so loud and clearly from Aida Husejinovic's article? As is well known, acceptance is the basis for transformation.
"Us and them", yes. But as Derrick Jensen suggests, it isn't us, the critics, who want a "us and them"-situation. It is psychiatry - and obviously psychology with it - that makes individuals in crisis their enemies.
_______________
And yes, my own cognitive abilities almost equalled to zero during the approximately six weeks the acute crisis lasted. Because I was far too occupied with what was going on deep inside myself to have the least energy to care for - compared - trivialities such as spelling, arithmetic, or any other everyday insignificance. On the other hand, my cognitive abilities have never been more functioning than today. Because I was given the chance to become aware and conscious, and come to terms with the abuse, I've experienced. Because this meant, that I eventually could relax. And because I wasn't chemically lobotomized.
_______________
I sent Aida Husejinovic a link to the Danish version of this post. She's read it. Several times. She has not replied to me. I contemplate to send the link to the magazine's editors, too.
Monday evening I came across an article, Aida Husejinovic, "Kognitiv remediation ved skizofreni" (Cognitive remediation for schizophrenia), Psykolog Nyt (the magazine of the Danish Psychological Association), no. 3, p. 20 - 27, where psychologist Aida Husejinovic writes:
"Even if Emil Kraepelin already a hundred years ago became aware of the fact, that cognitive dysfunctionalities are remarkable in patients with schizophrenia, this aspect was assumed to be a side effect of the medication for a long time. Yet, newer evidence points to that cognitive dysfunctionality is a core aspect of the illness, and characteristic for most of the patients." (Op.cit., p. 20)
And further down: "Dysfunctionalities in concentration and memory are regarded biological markers of schizophrenia, since they are detectable long before the onset of the illness, and can be observed in family members of patients with schizophrenia." (Op.cit., p. 20/21)
'There we have it,' I think, looking at this "argumentation" in favor of the biological model. 'The cart put before the horse.' Just as Mary Boyle for instance describes it in her article "The problem with diagnosis", The Psychologist, vol. 20, part 5, May 2007, p. 290 - 292. - An excellent article, by the way, that can only be recommended.
It is totally and completely beyond me how a psychologist can miss the point, that stress, stress, yeah, like in trauma, indeed has the capacity to reduce the stressed individual's cognitive abilities. Dysfunctional communication and abuse create stress. And thus cognitive dysfunctionalities in addition. Which is true for all involved individuals, also family members, who aren't labelled, but who nevertheless do practice dysfunctional behaviors. And it is especially true for individuals who are labelled with "schizophrenia", and who usually have been exposed to huge amounts of stress-creating dysfunctionality. Often throughout their entire childhood and adolescence.
I'd like to see to which extent Aida Husejinovic herself would be able to mobilize her cognitive abilities in a test-situation, where, during the very same testing, someone pointed a gun at her, threatening to shoot her at the first wrong answer she gave. For, this is approximarely the stress level you live with in a dysfunctional, abusive relationship.
In conflict with what Aida Husejinovic seems to regard an almost indisputable basis for her reflections about the cognitive abilities of "patients with schizophrenia", there is increasing evidence from newer research that points to so-called "schizophrenia" being a kind of post traumatic stress reaction. Not a biological brain disease. Cf. Paul Hammersley and John Read's meta study, for example. - But one looks in vain for this kind of references in the article. While, on the other hand, a whole lot of neuro- and biobiobiopsychiatric literature is listed. Of course.
Again I want to emphasize that, while Hammersley and Read - and similar studies - conclude that trauma "only" in about 70 per cent of the cases is demonstrable, they do not take other than physical/sexual abuse into account, thus leaving out verbal and purely psychological abuse, that can "hurt as much as sexual abuse". Furthermore, as they mention themselves, they were not in all investigated cases successful in establishing proof of abuse, because a number of psychiatrized individuals were never asked about their life story by staff. - According to the motto: "Don't ask a question, you know beforehand, you'll not like the answer to!"
Well, and if one wants it even more clearly, just compare the diagnostic criteria for "schizophrenia" with those for PTSD - and get surprised at the resemblance. The difference mainly being that individuals, who get labelled with "schizophrenia" often don't remember the experiences that were traumatizing to them, that they don't remember these experiences as traumatizing, and/or that the environment quite easily can deny the experiences. How convenient! For the abusers.
As Mary Boyle has it so to the point in her above mentioned article: "All scientists aim to identify patterns, or meaningful relationships, in whatever they study. But no aspiring science has ever been successful by asserting at the outset what kinds of patterns it will observe and retaining this belief in the face of decades of unsuccessful research. Yet this is exactly what has happened in psychiatric diagnosis."
Bias has never been the basis for anything but indifference. While indifference is the perfect protection for the abuser.
And apart from the fact that obviously also psychologists, and not just psychiatrists, are big time indifferent toward abuse - in order to protect the abuser-society we live in - they also - for the same reason - are indifferent toward neuroscience. It is no longer an assuption, but a well-proven fact, that neuroleptics cause brain shrinkage in the frontal lobes, the region of the brain where cognition is located. The region of the brain that makes us human beings. The chemical lobotomy. Exactly.
Maybe it is about time for psychology to consider its position in our civilization's war against (human) nature, and state clearly if it is on his clientele's or the abusers' side? Maybe it is about time for psychology to face and recognize the own inner abuser, who speaks so loud and clearly from Aida Husejinovic's article? As is well known, acceptance is the basis for transformation.
"Us and them", yes. But as Derrick Jensen suggests, it isn't us, the critics, who want a "us and them"-situation. It is psychiatry - and obviously psychology with it - that makes individuals in crisis their enemies.
_______________
And yes, my own cognitive abilities almost equalled to zero during the approximately six weeks the acute crisis lasted. Because I was far too occupied with what was going on deep inside myself to have the least energy to care for - compared - trivialities such as spelling, arithmetic, or any other everyday insignificance. On the other hand, my cognitive abilities have never been more functioning than today. Because I was given the chance to become aware and conscious, and come to terms with the abuse, I've experienced. Because this meant, that I eventually could relax. And because I wasn't chemically lobotomized.
_______________
I sent Aida Husejinovic a link to the Danish version of this post. She's read it. Several times. She has not replied to me. I contemplate to send the link to the magazine's editors, too.
Sunday, 22 March 2009
Boston Globe-interview with Judi Chamberlin
Today's Boston Globe has a great interview with Judi Chamberlin. Check it out, and comment - our "friends" from TAC have already been there, and they ask to get cut down to size.
Read Judi's blog post about the interview and more here.
Read Judi's blog post about the interview and more here.
Thursday, 19 March 2009
Video: Ray Sandford on his forced ect
I don't know if this is just me, but writing about stuff like what happened to Torben Martin Bødker just knocks me out, more or less completely. And reading headlines like "School shooter discontinued psychiatric treatment", i.e. "the dangerous mentally ill who go off their meds", without any mention of the fact, that it is far more likely, that these very same "meds", or withdrawal from them, caused Tim Kretschmer to experience akathisia, resulting in him going on a shooting spree, doesn't exactly make me feel better. Well, at least I had an interesting conversation on the phone, and comment exchange on my Danish blog with one of the article's authors. Who's just another victim of mainstream ideology, you might say, and certainly wasn't deliberately out to hurt anyone.
Nevertheless, I felt hurt, insulted, assaulted, discriminated against - apropos of ego-identification... - and at the same time as I feel, I have to speak out against this discrimination, there's the little voice in my head, trying to tell me, that it's me who's wrong, and who hasn't got a right to say anything at all. Exhausting.
Whatever, here, eventually, the video of Ray Sandford and his mom, giving their side of the story about Ray's forced electroshock "treatment". And since I can't think straight enough anymore tonight to write anything just halfway intelligent about it myself, or create more than two links: Jayme at Rayne's World has a great piece on it, and Stephany at Soulful Sepulcher has all the information about how you can help Ray.
Nevertheless, I felt hurt, insulted, assaulted, discriminated against - apropos of ego-identification... - and at the same time as I feel, I have to speak out against this discrimination, there's the little voice in my head, trying to tell me, that it's me who's wrong, and who hasn't got a right to say anything at all. Exhausting.
Whatever, here, eventually, the video of Ray Sandford and his mom, giving their side of the story about Ray's forced electroshock "treatment". And since I can't think straight enough anymore tonight to write anything just halfway intelligent about it myself, or create more than two links: Jayme at Rayne's World has a great piece on it, and Stephany at Soulful Sepulcher has all the information about how you can help Ray.
Sunday, 15 March 2009
Update to "The murder of Torben Martin Bødker, a Bosnia-veteran"
Two things I want to add to my post on the murder of Torben Martin Bødker:
1. It was a known fact, that Torben Martin Bødker was afraid of uniforms. Wtf did those two cops, who went to get him, think of??? "Let's go scare the shit out of that nut-case"??? I have no words but: "Jail time!".
2. Just to make it very, very clear: I don't in any way suggest, that what we need would be more hospital beds, more shrinks, more psychiatry, more system. On the contrary. What we need is to get a system, that never has been anything else but profoundly broken, replaced by 100% voluntary, 100% non-coercive, alternatives, that people can turn to and feel safe that no one there ever is going to label, force-treat, or in any other way assault them.
1. It was a known fact, that Torben Martin Bødker was afraid of uniforms. Wtf did those two cops, who went to get him, think of??? "Let's go scare the shit out of that nut-case"??? I have no words but: "Jail time!".
2. Just to make it very, very clear: I don't in any way suggest, that what we need would be more hospital beds, more shrinks, more psychiatry, more system. On the contrary. What we need is to get a system, that never has been anything else but profoundly broken, replaced by 100% voluntary, 100% non-coercive, alternatives, that people can turn to and feel safe that no one there ever is going to label, force-treat, or in any other way assault them.
The murder of Torben Martin Bødker, a Bosnia-veteran
"Probably he had a psychological flaw in advance, that then worsened by the things he met with in Bosnia," the president of Danmarks Internationale Veteran Organisation (Denmark's international veteran organization), Bjarne Hesselberg, is quoted in an article on politiken.dk, published on Wednesday.
Torben Martin Bødker, a 32-year-old Bosnia-veteran, was shot and killed by two police officers on Tuesday, 9th, 2009. Torben had returned to Denmark from service in Bosnia ten years ago, suffering from severe PTSD. He did not get help.
His family and the veteran's organization tell, that they did what they could, but that Torben was reluctant to talk about his problems. Any wonder?? What is PTSD? PTSD is having looked the inhumanity of, for instance, war in the eyes. Why would anyone, who has experienced that, ever wish to talk about it with the people, who endorse this very inhumanity?? What Torben would have needed, was someone to talk to, who was not a relative nor in any way affiliated with the military. Someone, who would have valued his points of view unconditionally. He did not get that help. Because our society can't accept criticism of its abusiveness. Because it can't accept anyone questioning the necessity and validity of, for instance, warfare. Why it doesn't hesitate a second to label those, who do question as "mentally ill" and "psychologically flawed". More abuse. More warfare.
Torben Martin Bødker went to a hospital, just recently, begging for help. He was sent home. But when his family contacted the authorities to have him committed, two police officers in uniform showed up at his place. He attacked them with a sword. Because he was "mentally ill", "nuts", as the media tells us? NO!!! Because he felt cornered, and had to defend himself!
From "Bekendtgørelse om fremgangsmåden ved gennemførelse af tvangsindlæggelser" (Notice on the procedure of implementation of involuntary hospitalization):
§10, subsection 2: "The committing physician should if possible be present at the implementation of the involuntary hospitalization." (my italics)
§12: "The executing police officers should if possible be in plain clothes." (my italics)
Which in plain English means: it is completely down to the individual physician him-/herself, if s/he feels like being present or not. And it is completely down to the individual cop, if s/he feels like changing, before s/he pounds and breaks open your door.
But no! Torben Martin Bødker was not defending himself. After all, the cops came to help him, who was a psychologically flawed loonie, not to harm him, right?! It were the cops, who were defending themselves when they shot and killed this psychologically flawed, completely gone bonkers individual, right?! Wrong!
After the incident, everybody involved was offered counselling by a psychologist. My question is: where was this psychologist when the cops came to bust Torben Martin Bødker?? Where was this psychologist when Torben Martin Bødker showed up at the hospital, begging for help???
A system, that doesn't only deny people like Torben Martin Bødker the least help , but into the bargain denies them help in order to later on in the process assault and kill them - in the name of "help" - is a grossly abusive system. And it is a grossly failed system in regard to real help. When will this change?! And when will the media stop covering this system's ass?!
Torben Martin Bødker
Read also: Sholom Keller, A Letter To My Shrink,
Doug Bremner's blog post DSM V Shadow Team Strikes Back at Psychiatric Establishment on PTSD,
and an update to this post.
Torben Martin Bødker, a 32-year-old Bosnia-veteran, was shot and killed by two police officers on Tuesday, 9th, 2009. Torben had returned to Denmark from service in Bosnia ten years ago, suffering from severe PTSD. He did not get help.
His family and the veteran's organization tell, that they did what they could, but that Torben was reluctant to talk about his problems. Any wonder?? What is PTSD? PTSD is having looked the inhumanity of, for instance, war in the eyes. Why would anyone, who has experienced that, ever wish to talk about it with the people, who endorse this very inhumanity?? What Torben would have needed, was someone to talk to, who was not a relative nor in any way affiliated with the military. Someone, who would have valued his points of view unconditionally. He did not get that help. Because our society can't accept criticism of its abusiveness. Because it can't accept anyone questioning the necessity and validity of, for instance, warfare. Why it doesn't hesitate a second to label those, who do question as "mentally ill" and "psychologically flawed". More abuse. More warfare.
Torben Martin Bødker went to a hospital, just recently, begging for help. He was sent home. But when his family contacted the authorities to have him committed, two police officers in uniform showed up at his place. He attacked them with a sword. Because he was "mentally ill", "nuts", as the media tells us? NO!!! Because he felt cornered, and had to defend himself!
From "Bekendtgørelse om fremgangsmåden ved gennemførelse af tvangsindlæggelser" (Notice on the procedure of implementation of involuntary hospitalization):
§10, subsection 2: "The committing physician should if possible be present at the implementation of the involuntary hospitalization." (my italics)
§12: "The executing police officers should if possible be in plain clothes." (my italics)
Which in plain English means: it is completely down to the individual physician him-/herself, if s/he feels like being present or not. And it is completely down to the individual cop, if s/he feels like changing, before s/he pounds and breaks open your door.
But no! Torben Martin Bødker was not defending himself. After all, the cops came to help him, who was a psychologically flawed loonie, not to harm him, right?! It were the cops, who were defending themselves when they shot and killed this psychologically flawed, completely gone bonkers individual, right?! Wrong!
After the incident, everybody involved was offered counselling by a psychologist. My question is: where was this psychologist when the cops came to bust Torben Martin Bødker?? Where was this psychologist when Torben Martin Bødker showed up at the hospital, begging for help???
A system, that doesn't only deny people like Torben Martin Bødker the least help , but into the bargain denies them help in order to later on in the process assault and kill them - in the name of "help" - is a grossly abusive system. And it is a grossly failed system in regard to real help. When will this change?! And when will the media stop covering this system's ass?!
Torben Martin Bødker
Read also: Sholom Keller, A Letter To My Shrink,
Doug Bremner's blog post DSM V Shadow Team Strikes Back at Psychiatric Establishment on PTSD,
and an update to this post.
Friday, 13 March 2009
Anti-bullying expert Helle Rabøl Hansen's bullying language
E-mail to Danish "anti-bullying-inspirator" Helle Rabøl Hansen:
Dear Helle Rabøl Hansen,
In context with the latest school shooting in Germany, I happened to read Gitte Svanholm's article "Elever kan afværge skoleskyderier" (Students can prevent school shootings), politiken.dk, January 26th, 2009, http://politiken.dk/indland/article636458.ece, that quotes you:
"Those who go berserk have an extremity - a twisted soul - in addition to their loneliness. But it isn't only their genetic material and their education, that makes them go berserk with weapons at schools. To a great extent, school structure enters into it, too".
I agree, that society, parents and school included, play a decisive role in regard to the single individual's well-being. They do play the decisive role.
What I don't understand though, is where you get your knowledge in regard to the genetic material of the individuals concerned from. Until this day today, no one gene has been found, that could be made responsible for these individuals' behavior. Thus, your mention of genetic material is pure speculation, and has to be termed extremely unscientific.
Furthermore, both insinuating a genetic defect, and even more a wording like "Those who go berserk have an extremity - a twisted soul- ..." (my emphasis) is utterly discriminating against the individuals concerned.
Now, unfortunately it is on our society's agenda to grossly discriminate against everyone who doesn't in every particular live up to the norms that define normal behavior. It is normal to do so, so to speak. Nevertheless, I wonder how comes, that even an expert on the matter of bullying obviously isn't capable of recognizing this, and of avoiding to grossly discriminate, bully, herself, and I'd appreciate to hear, how you explain your choice of words.
Best regards,
Marian B. Goldstein
Dear Helle Rabøl Hansen,
In context with the latest school shooting in Germany, I happened to read Gitte Svanholm's article "Elever kan afværge skoleskyderier" (Students can prevent school shootings), politiken.dk, January 26th, 2009, http://politiken.dk/indland/article636458.ece, that quotes you:
"Those who go berserk have an extremity - a twisted soul - in addition to their loneliness. But it isn't only their genetic material and their education, that makes them go berserk with weapons at schools. To a great extent, school structure enters into it, too".
I agree, that society, parents and school included, play a decisive role in regard to the single individual's well-being. They do play the decisive role.
What I don't understand though, is where you get your knowledge in regard to the genetic material of the individuals concerned from. Until this day today, no one gene has been found, that could be made responsible for these individuals' behavior. Thus, your mention of genetic material is pure speculation, and has to be termed extremely unscientific.
Furthermore, both insinuating a genetic defect, and even more a wording like "Those who go berserk have an extremity - a twisted soul- ..." (my emphasis) is utterly discriminating against the individuals concerned.
Now, unfortunately it is on our society's agenda to grossly discriminate against everyone who doesn't in every particular live up to the norms that define normal behavior. It is normal to do so, so to speak. Nevertheless, I wonder how comes, that even an expert on the matter of bullying obviously isn't capable of recognizing this, and of avoiding to grossly discriminate, bully, herself, and I'd appreciate to hear, how you explain your choice of words.
Best regards,
Marian B. Goldstein
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
