 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| K wrote: | The articles linked to claim that Paul Katz (and others) got away with heaps -- and not just ECTs. And there are many more articles than those.
e.g.
https://www.madinamerica.com/2016/03/the-mental-health-tribunal/
| The same Swinburne clinical psych professor wrote: | ...
The patient was not able to exercise his legal right to attend because he was, yet again, tied to his bed. The members of the Tribunal made no effort to question the legitimacy of this, even though their own record of the meeting confirms that there had been no ‘critical incident’ prior to his being tied up, yet again. ...
The psychiatrist on the Tribunal panel went to the ward and quickly assessed that BD was, yet again, not competent to refuse consent to ECT (even though an independent psychiatrist’s report said he was fully competent), but informed us all that he had nevertheless given consent to some medication that he had previously refused. So it seems he is incompetent when he disagrees with them but competent when he agrees.
One of the treating psychiatrists, Dr SM, admitted that part of the reason that he was incompetent to withhold consent was because his memory was impaired, as a result of the ECT (acknowledged in Statement of Reasons), so they had to keep giving it to him against his will to try to get him better to the point where he might be able to consent to have more of it rather than have to have it against his will. When I tried to point out the various logical flaws in this line of reasoning the supposedly neutral psychiatrist on the Tribunal panel, Dr BM, not only failed to question the curious reasoning (as any unbiased Tribunal member would have done), she actually tried to come to Dr SM’s defence, making several points on her behalf, to try to make her sound more logical (she failed). This constitutes clear bias and suggests ignorance of, or wilful neglect of, her role as a Tribunal member.
Meanwhile the Eastern Health barrister, Mr PH, sat at the back of the room openly (ie he did not stop when I turned round and observed him) controlling the chair of the hearing panel with nods and shakes of his head – about who could speak, who should go to see Mr D on the ward, etc.. I witnessed this on two separate occasions. On one, the chair of the hearing panel paused, looked over to Mr PH, waited for his signal and then proceeded in accordance with that signal. This is clearly unethical conduct on the part of the chair, and is of particularly grave concern because the chair of this particular hearing was the Chair of the Mental Health Tribunal as a whole, Mr MC.
...
|
etc. etc. etc.
That all sounds totally farcical and illegal. |
Sounds like.......who know who the psychologist is. It is way too much trouble to keep people involuntary to perform ECT on a long basis unless there the person is very ill. Remember, demand far exceeds supply in terms of mental health beds. Logically, there is no sound reason to keep a person detained under the provisions of the mental health act when demand is so high unless the person us experiencing a serious mental illness. It’s not only illogical but counter-intuitive. All of us psychiatrists inlcluded want simpler outcomes & better outcomes for their clients.
To be clear, Dr Katz is clinical director not the person applying the treatment as such.
He is also trained in South Africa where they are highly skilled in my experience: unlike in Australia many are trained in Neurology too.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
 |
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Sounds like ..... hell! Enjoy!!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| watt price tully wrote: | | K wrote: | The articles linked to claim that Paul Katz (and others) got away with heaps -- and not just ECTs. And there are many more articles than those.
e.g.
https://www.madinamerica.com/2016/03/the-mental-health-tribunal/
| The same Swinburne clinical psych professor wrote: | ...
The patient was not able to exercise his legal right to attend because he was, yet again, tied to his bed. The members of the Tribunal made no effort to question the legitimacy of this, even though their own record of the meeting confirms that there had been no ‘critical incident’ prior to his being tied up, yet again. ...
The psychiatrist on the Tribunal panel went to the ward and quickly assessed that BD was, yet again, not competent to refuse consent to ECT (even though an independent psychiatrist’s report said he was fully competent), but informed us all that he had nevertheless given consent to some medication that he had previously refused. So it seems he is incompetent when he disagrees with them but competent when he agrees.
One of the treating psychiatrists, Dr SM, admitted that part of the reason that he was incompetent to withhold consent was because his memory was impaired, as a result of the ECT (acknowledged in Statement of Reasons), so they had to keep giving it to him against his will to try to get him better to the point where he might be able to consent to have more of it rather than have to have it against his will. When I tried to point out the various logical flaws in this line of reasoning the supposedly neutral psychiatrist on the Tribunal panel, Dr BM, not only failed to question the curious reasoning (as any unbiased Tribunal member would have done), she actually tried to come to Dr SM’s defence, making several points on her behalf, to try to make her sound more logical (she failed). This constitutes clear bias and suggests ignorance of, or wilful neglect of, her role as a Tribunal member.
Meanwhile the Eastern Health barrister, Mr PH, sat at the back of the room openly (ie he did not stop when I turned round and observed him) controlling the chair of the hearing panel with nods and shakes of his head – about who could speak, who should go to see Mr D on the ward, etc.. I witnessed this on two separate occasions. On one, the chair of the hearing panel paused, looked over to Mr PH, waited for his signal and then proceeded in accordance with that signal. This is clearly unethical conduct on the part of the chair, and is of particularly grave concern because the chair of this particular hearing was the Chair of the Mental Health Tribunal as a whole, Mr MC.
...
|
etc. etc. etc.
That all sounds totally farcical and illegal. |
Sounds like.......who know who the psychologist is. It is way too much trouble to keep people involuntary to perform ECT on a long basis unless there the person is very ill. Remember, demand far exceeds supply in terms of mental health beds. Logically, there is no sound reason to keep a person detained under the provisions of the mental health act when demand is so high unless the person us experiencing a serious mental illness. It’s not only illogical but counter-intuitive. All of us psychiatrists inlcluded want simpler outcomes & better outcomes for their clients.
To be clear, Dr Katz is clinical director not the person applying the treatment as such.
He is also trained in South Africa where they are highly skilled in my experience: unlike in Australia many are trained in Neurology too. |
He's also in my personal experience, a first class human being.
IIRC the supposed victim here terrorised inpatient units and was, for a period, admitted to Thomas Embling
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| watt price tully wrote: | | K wrote: |
e.g. https://www.madinamerica.com/2016/03/the-mental-health-tribunal/
| The same Swinburne clinical psych professor wrote: | ...
The patient was not able to exercise his legal right to attend because he was, yet again, tied to his bed. The members of the Tribunal made no effort to question the legitimacy of this, even though their own record of the meeting confirms that there had been no ‘critical incident’ prior to his being tied up, yet again. ...
The psychiatrist on the Tribunal panel went to the ward and quickly assessed that BD was, yet again, not competent to refuse consent to ECT (even though an independent psychiatrist’s report said he was fully competent), but informed us all that he had nevertheless given consent to some medication that he had previously refused. So it seems he is incompetent when he disagrees with them but competent when he agrees.
One of the treating psychiatrists, Dr SM, admitted that part of the reason that he was incompetent to withhold consent was because his memory was impaired, as a result of the ECT (acknowledged in Statement of Reasons), so they had to keep giving it to him against his will to try to get him better to the point where he might be able to consent to have more of it rather than have to have it against his will. When I tried to point out the various logical flaws in this line of reasoning the supposedly neutral psychiatrist on the Tribunal panel, Dr BM, not only failed to question the curious reasoning (as any unbiased Tribunal member would have done), she actually tried to come to Dr SM’s defence, making several points on her behalf, to try to make her sound more logical (she failed). This constitutes clear bias and suggests ignorance of, or wilful neglect of, her role as a Tribunal member.
Meanwhile the Eastern Health barrister, Mr PH, sat at the back of the room openly (ie he did not stop when I turned round and observed him) controlling the chair of the hearing panel with nods and shakes of his head – about who could speak, who should go to see Mr D on the ward, etc.. I witnessed this on two separate occasions. On one, the chair of the hearing panel paused, looked over to Mr PH, waited for his signal and then proceeded in accordance with that signal. This is clearly unethical conduct on the part of the chair, and is of particularly grave concern because the chair of this particular hearing was the Chair of the Mental Health Tribunal as a whole, Mr MC.
...
|
|
Sounds like.......who know who the psychologist is. ... |
The psychologist, John Read, was there at the Tribunal hearing, unlike us. He was an independent witness, unlike Dr. Katz, Dr. SM, etc. (And we at least know the "it's okay because it's velcro not chains" comment was made by Paul Katz, because that's in the ABC video.)
Read claims several things from that Tribunal hearing:
1) They used the patient's memory loss as an argument for his alleged incapacity to object to continuation of the "treatment" they admitted was the cause of that memory loss;
2) they were allowed to keep the patient "chained" (with velcro!) so he was denied his right to attend the hearing;
3) their lawyer was playing puppet-master at the back of the room.
Yep, Katz is from South Africa. So is GD and his family. (The news reports say he is a person "of colour".) GD's supporters say that, elsewhere, the father was banned from visits to GD because staff claimed he tried to speak to GD in a foreign language. GD's supporters say that can't be true because GD only knows English...
But I don't know how (if the first part is true) health institutions can justify an English-only rule anyway. Is this true of prisons? When murderers, terrorists, etc. get visits in prison, can they be forced to speak only English? |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
FFS, I'm sorry I mentioned it. I thought WPT might have came across this individual, I didn't expect to trigger another episode.
Mods, I'm sorry, any danger of splitting this off into the Psych thread that only K posts in?
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Back to being happy.
Went to see a surgeon today about the 2 hernias I have.
Good news is, no requirement for surgery anytime soon. I can put it off indefinitely. 
The sort of bad news is I do need to start doing exercise again, particularly on my core because of my dodgy back. I can exercise no dramas, but hernias naturally get bigger over time and putting strain on the area by doing core exercises is going to speed that up. So the smart decision seems to be to do it sooner rather than much later.
So, good news for now, I'll wait to see if I'm going to be employed past May first. If I'm unemployed I'll do it and get it out of the road, if I'm employed I'll work around a time that I can afford to miss a week or so of work.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
swoop42 
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Any way to train a hernia to head towards ones gentleman's sausage?
A friend with a micro penis wants to know.
Stupid human body.
If you want to give us extra lumps and bumps at least put them somewhere of use!
_________________
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
Not sure it works that way, but maybe your "friend" could try sticking his micro in a bee hive. The swelling could last 24-48 hours.
As David 'Bumble' lloyd says in this video, can you take the pain away and leave the swelling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrCNUrnsu2s
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| K wrote: | | watt price tully wrote: | | K wrote: |
e.g. https://www.madinamerica.com/2016/03/the-mental-health-tribunal/
| The same Swinburne clinical psych professor wrote: | ...
The patient was not able to exercise his legal right to attend because he was, yet again, tied to his bed. The members of the Tribunal made no effort to question the legitimacy of this, even though their own record of the meeting confirms that there had been no ‘critical incident’ prior to his being tied up, yet again. ...
The psychiatrist on the Tribunal panel went to the ward and quickly assessed that BD was, yet again, not competent to refuse consent to ECT (even though an independent psychiatrist’s report said he was fully competent), but informed us all that he had nevertheless given consent to some medication that he had previously refused. So it seems he is incompetent when he disagrees with them but competent when he agrees.
One of the treating psychiatrists, Dr SM, admitted that part of the reason that he was incompetent to withhold consent was because his memory was impaired, as a result of the ECT (acknowledged in Statement of Reasons), so they had to keep giving it to him against his will to try to get him better to the point where he might be able to consent to have more of it rather than have to have it against his will. When I tried to point out the various logical flaws in this line of reasoning the supposedly neutral psychiatrist on the Tribunal panel, Dr BM, not only failed to question the curious reasoning (as any unbiased Tribunal member would have done), she actually tried to come to Dr SM’s defence, making several points on her behalf, to try to make her sound more logical (she failed). This constitutes clear bias and suggests ignorance of, or wilful neglect of, her role as a Tribunal member.
Meanwhile the Eastern Health barrister, Mr PH, sat at the back of the room openly (ie he did not stop when I turned round and observed him) controlling the chair of the hearing panel with nods and shakes of his head – about who could speak, who should go to see Mr D on the ward, etc.. I witnessed this on two separate occasions. On one, the chair of the hearing panel paused, looked over to Mr PH, waited for his signal and then proceeded in accordance with that signal. This is clearly unethical conduct on the part of the chair, and is of particularly grave concern because the chair of this particular hearing was the Chair of the Mental Health Tribunal as a whole, Mr MC.
...
|
|
Sounds like.......who know who the psychologist is. ... |
The psychologist, John Read, was there at the Tribunal hearing, unlike us. He was an independent witness, unlike Dr. Katz, Dr. SM, etc. (And we at least know the "it's okay because it's velcro not chains" comment was made by Paul Katz, because that's in the ABC video.)
Read claims several things from that Tribunal hearing:
1) They used the patient's memory loss as an argument for his alleged incapacity to object to continuation of the "treatment" they admitted was the cause of that memory loss;
2) they were allowed to keep the patient "chained" (with velcro!) so he was denied his right to attend the hearing;
3) their lawyer was playing puppet-master at the back of the room.
Yep, Katz is from South Africa. So is GD and his family. (The news reports say he is a person "of colour".) GD's supporters say that, elsewhere, the father was banned from visits to GD because staff claimed he tried to speak to GD in a foreign language. GD's supporters say that can't be true because GD only knows English...
But I don't know how (if the first part is true) health institutions can justify an English-only rule anyway. Is this true of prisons? When murderers, terrorists, etc. get visits in prison, can they be forced to speak only English? |
It is not in anyone interests to have people undertake ECT and indeed involuntary treatment if they don't need it
Yes people do get restrained to prevent injury to themselves and others a lot of the time: staff don't do it enough.
If you are a risk to yourself or others and have a known history of violence then sedation and restraint. Don't knbow this bloike but he's been jailed before and part of his cisotdial sentence was to be admitted to forensic mental health. This isn't for those who have a different point of view, don't like sugar in their coffee; it is for serious offenders who have serious mental illnesses.
Sometimes those individuals need treatments like ECT as unpleasant as it might sound when all other treatment options have failed.
As for the said psychologist.... We have his word however we don't know his agenda. We have his version of events. We have his bits of infomration and his experence of the hearings. I would take it with a grain of salt until I knew a lot more. As I have stated there is nothing to be gained indeed a waste of time to unneccesarily use cooercive treatment. It simply defies logic.
However what I don't understand is: a compulsory patient isn't required to give their consent for treatment including ECT. A voluntary patient is required to provide their consent.
We do get vexatious litigants all the time & I suspect this person fits that bill. Sometmes blaming others is a lot easier than facing up to one's own situation. ECT is used unremarkably a lot of the time a few days a week for many people with good results.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| watt price tully wrote: | | K wrote: | | watt price tully wrote: | ...
Sounds like.......who know who the psychologist is. ... |
The psychologist, John Read, was there at the Tribunal hearing, unlike us. He was an independent witness, unlike Dr. Katz, Dr. SM, etc. (And we at least know the "it's okay because it's velcro not chains" comment was made by Paul Katz, because that's in the ABC video.)
Read claims several things from that Tribunal hearing:
1) They used the patient's memory loss as an argument for his alleged incapacity to object to continuation of the "treatment" they admitted was the cause of that memory loss;
2) they were allowed to keep the patient "chained" (with velcro!) so he was denied his right to attend the hearing;
3) their lawyer was playing puppet-master at the back of the room.
... GD's supporters say that, elsewhere, the father was banned from visits to GD because staff claimed he tried to speak to GD in a foreign language. GD's supporters say that can't be true because GD only knows English...
But I don't know how (if the first part is true) health institutions can justify an English-only rule anyway. Is this true of prisons? When murderers, terrorists, etc. get visits in prison, can they be forced to speak only English? |
It is not in anyone interests to have people undertake ECT and indeed involuntary treatment if they don't need it
Yes people do get restrained to prevent injury to themselves and others a lot of the time: staff don't do it enough.
If you are a risk to yourself or others and have a known history of violence then sedation and restraint. Don't knbow this bloike but he's been jailed before and part of his cisotdial sentence was to be admitted to forensic mental health. This isn't for those who have a different point of view, don't like sugar in their coffee; it is for serious offenders who have serious mental illnesses.
Sometimes those individuals need treatments like ECT as unpleasant as it might sound when all other treatment options have failed.
As for the said psychologist.... We have his word however we don't know his agenda. We have his version of events. We have his bits of infomration and his experence of the hearings. I would take it with a grain of salt until I knew more. As I have stated there is nothing to be gained indeed a waste of time to unneccesarily use cooercive treatment. It simply defies logic.
|
It's not really my views here; it's his supporters', who include health professionals like the psychiatrist and the Swinburne clinical psych. professor. (The details of what they say are enough to be a cause for concern, at least. It can be right to be concerned even if we're not certain about exactly every aspect of GD's situation.) The arguments you put forth are about how the system should work, etc., and those two (and the other supporters) must know those things too. The question is whether it does work, or really whether it did work in this case.
I don't know GD personally. No one in this forum does. I just think it's quite unlikely the Swinburne professor was completely making up what he said about the Tribunal hearing, just because his own work is critical of ECT.
It does sound like the later Tribunal hearing decision was different from the earlier Tribunal decisions, even though no medical facts had changed. If nothing changed, and the decision is the opposite, that means one of those Tribunals must be wrong. (I don't know if they were the same people or not.)
On the litigation, it sounds like they were litigating just to try to get an injunction stopping Eastern Health from injecting the patient against his will. The magistrate ruled that it was not in his jurisdiction. (It's VCAT's.) |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Chilled out this arvo and finished reading Harry Potter and the cursed child.
Written as a play, it takes a little getting used to but once you're in a rhythm it flows well.
good story, liked it.
The secret that they don't want people who see the play to reveal is.....
Harry is scared of Pigeons.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Morrigu 
Joined: 11 Aug 2001
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Another woman due to birth with a rare red cell antibody - bloody hell so many lately!!
2 compatible units in Australia - please don't bleed, please don't bleed!!
Health baby delivered - decent set of lungs too the ruggit - little bleeding - mum and bub doing well!
Thank fck - I'm exhausted but very very happy! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
Good stuff,
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
luvdids 
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Location: work
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Morrigu wrote: | Another woman due to birth with a rare red cell antibody - bloody hell so many lately!!
2 compatible units in Australia - please don't bleed, please don't bleed!!
Health baby delivered - decent set of lungs too the ruggit - little bleeding - mum and bub doing well!
Thank fck - I'm exhausted but very very happy! |
2 units in the whole country?? Bloody hell, stress of having to handle/co ordinate actual life & death situations must be exhausting! Good on you.
Lucky she wasn't a bleeder! |
|
|
|
|
Morrigu
Joined: 11 Aug 2001
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ Indeed!!
Hopefully she will stop being a breeder! That was baby number 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
