Informed Consent for psychiatrists

I think the key here is that when a person 'refuses treatment' they are then diagnosed as being 'not be able to give informed consent.' They are then threatened with a more severe treatment like electroshock, longer commitment, added drugs, higher dose... until the person says exactly what they've been told they must agree to, or else. If the person then gets more and more disabled by the torture and complains, the label 'treatment resistant' is given. Which would be incredibly humorous in a comedy skit, if it weren't for the fact that so many people are being tortured to death by psychiatry every minute of the day. Of course the person is resisting the torturous treatments! People don't like being enslaved as laboratory animals. Medicine is meant to enable, not disable!

For those people who end up as Plainsfolk in advertisements for diabolical psychiatric torture procedures, think of any regime and how it uses its victims for propaganda routines to validate their horror as 'goodness.'

(from Insight SBS 2013 electroshock promo show, repeated recently in an awful campaign to make this brain bleeding device Class 2, the same as eye-glasses.)
'There are a group of people, as we've heard that because of the nature of their illness are so unwell, that they have no idea what their illness is about, and no idea what treatments work and no idea what the side-effects are to be and so on'... they're called psychiatrists.

Let's look at, say if...

A PSYCHIATRIST HAD A SELF-EXAMINATION ROUTINE

 • Does the psychiatrist know what is happening?

 Not really. For instance the psychiatrist admits that they don't know how ECT works, they have no conclusive way of proving their diagnosis. No, the psychiatrist doesn't know what is happening at all, just that they'll get some $$$ if they do as the pharma says.

 • Can the psychiatrist weigh up the information?

 No, the psychiatrists leaves the drug weighing to the chemist.

 • Does the psychiatrist appreciate that they've got an illness?

 No, the psychiatrist believes they are a physician to the soul.

 • Does the psychiatrist recognise the array of treatments available in relation to the treatment of that illness?

 No, the psychiatrist narrowly focuses on assisted-harm as a cure and has done so for over 200 years, since they took over from the witchhunters. A psychiatrist doesn't recognise being kind, listening, or validating grief as treatments, the psychiatrist only sees profit in cruel treatments as the 'array.'

Therefore the psychiatrist cannot give informed consent according to their own belief of how-to obtain Informed Consent.

Ugly regime

An ugly mongrel group of people gained authority from my government to threaten me, humiliate me, attempt to brainwash me, then torture me by injecting various chemicals into my blood-stream for nearly 14 years.

I was afraid to speak about who they were lest people judge me, not employ me, or condemn me to further assaults on my body, that could include electrocution and lengthy captivity.

It is an horrific regime that still thrives in my country. Please find a way to stop the cult of psychiatry infiltrating government policy. This regime of terror is not medicine, it is a crime against humanity. It must be stopped. The regime’s propaganda may make you victim-blame, criminalising the innocent (some of psychiatry’s victims are younger than two years old, many are women or teenagers who have been bullied and violently abused.) Try to look beyond what you have had preached to you by psychiatry.

Your silence, is you condemning more people to torture.

 

Prescient psychiatry: ‘Symptoms of mental illness’ proving future criminal intent…

Innocent until proven guilty does not apply to those who’ve been diagnosed with ‘mental illness.’ You are guilty of potential of potential crimes, a psychiatrist suspects you might commit if they don’t chemically strait-jacket your body and mind into a ‘placid’ state. (The potential criminals who are in states of catatonia, are also suspects with negative symptoms of schizophrenia. I can’t see how it helps to use the same drugs on those with catatonia, as on those with mania, but apparently it’s all about prevention being better than cure and for the safety of society.)

                ‘Hearing voices’ is seen as a potentially criminal condition. Unusual states of consciousness psychiatrists believe have enough kinetic energy to be a potential danger to society. Psychiatrists have the prescience to know these things. You cannot expect the ordinary lay public to understand their reasoning. It’s all too complicated for them.

                Essentially though, psychiatrists couldn’t really convict a person of ‘potential future crimes,’ so, why are they allowed to not only imprison, but torture suspects of events only psychiatrists can predict could happen?

                Well, because the law in the state of Victoria, amongst other places, states that it is an incarceratable offence to ‘appear to have a mental illness’ and if you ‘appear to have a mental illness’ you are therefore potentially a danger to self or others and are in need of immediate treatment, according to prescient psychiatrists. And therefore you meet the criteria of sectioning. And therefore you will be forcefully drugged and if pregnant, electrocuted.

                What is psychiatry doing?! Well, they are punishing people they suspect will commit future crimes. Not because the patient has ‘made plans,’ but because the patient has ‘symptoms of mental illness,’ ie are hearing voices etc...

                Psychiatrists are punishing the people they suspect, in the same why they punish people who have committed violent crimes, who have ‘not been fit to stand trial due to mental illness.’

                Psychiatrists have a notion that a person with a ‘mental illness’ who commits a crime is the same as a person with a ‘mental illness’ who doesn’t commit a crime. Psychiatrists think that a person who is non-violent should be subjected to the same harsh chemical lobotomy as a person who is violent.

                Given that psychiatry has had a long history in aversion therapy (including King George III, who had porphyria causing him to ‘go mad’. His biological illness was not helped by the psychiatrists of the time using aversion therapy, blistering his calves and feet with acid. But the psychiatrists claimed this ‘cured’ him.) Given that aversion therapy is psychiatry’s main tool, (now in the form of neuroleptics and other drugs, seclusion and ECT) why do they think it works well as ‘treatment’ to give the same drugs to murderers, as to victims of assault, who are suffering repercussive mental health issues as a consequence?

                Now, murderers are put in separate, high security forensic psychiatric ‘hospitals,’ to victims of assault, who’ve committed no crimes, and are put in psychiatric 'hospitals'; but they are both subjected to the same torture regime by psychiatrists, if they’re deemed to have a ‘mental illness’ that ‘needs treatment’. And, according to psychiatrists all ‘mental illness’ needs their ‘treatment’ regimes.

                When are innocent victims of crime and other traumas, going to be allowed to decide what their treatment consists of? It is not okay to torture a person who happens to be ‘grieving for too long.’ It is not okay for a psychiatry to torture a victim of domestic violence. It is not okay to torture people full stop, particularly when the person is not in the least bit violent and has no need to be chemically restrained.

                Psychiatry has no place in ‘treating’ with aversion therapy innocent victims of crime, war and horrific circumstances, or even those who have been under too much pressure, just because they hear voices, are feeling suicidal, or are experiencing unusual states of consciousness. These people should not be retraumatised by psychiatry! They should be helped with compassion and understanding to gain a solid understanding of consensual reality, so they can understand why they are suffering and how they can break-through the internal crisis they are experiencing.

                My suggestion is that all psychiatrists get the sack and non-invasive therapies replace their cruel torturous regimes. It’d save a lot of money for the government. There wouldn’t be the $145,000 per year and up wage for the psychiatrists. Nor would there be the huge chemist bill of around $3600 per patient to add to that. Plus, people would actually move through their crisis, stabilise and get back to earning a living.

                Psychiatric drugs are ill treatment. Harming those already suffering does not help one bit. Forcing them to agree that the treatment is helping so they can be released from treatment orders, is just ridiculous.

                And, really, when you think about it, predicting future crimes should be evidence based not ‘symptom’ based.

                Work it out, hearing voices and having unusual states of consciousness is not a crime and should not be treated like it is something horrendously violent crime that needs immediate and life-time chemical restraints, that renders that person into no longer being able to think enough to heal, let alone be a contributing member to society. Plus the effects of these drugs not only damn a person’s intellect, they cause horrific physical disfiguring. This is just not okay. Please show some respect for victims of crime who develop ‘symptoms of mental illness’ and stop the horrific crimes against humanity psychiatrists are committing.

Make a New Year's resolution to end the psychiatric regime in 2013!
more protest Ts

I am like the Prime Minister

I am an atheist

Like the Aussie

Prime Minister.

And, similar again

Because both our fathers

Studied science.

But mine was

A secondary school teacher,

Where as hers

Was a psychiatric nurse.

My father taught me

About nature’s ecology

And a range of maths equations.

Don’t know though,

If Julia’s father taught her

About how he had to

Participate in torturing people

In order to feed her.

Even if he did

And this upset her,

Does she actually have

The power to do anything

To stop laws that force

Psychiatric nurses from

Doing what goes against

Most people’s ethics?

I am an atheist

Like the Aussie PM.

We have fathers

Who were scientists.

My father never

Beat a student

When it was legal.

But if Julia’s father

Didn’t forcefully drug

People under his care,

He would’ve got the sack

And little Julia

Would’ve gone hungry.

I wonder how

An atheist can believe

Into the cult of psychiatry.

It doesn’t seem logical,

Now Julia has power

And enough money,

For her to continue to do

What her father did

In torturing people,

In order to feed her

When she was a child.

Psychiatrists are now

Under her rule.

She’s not an underdog

Nurse like her father

Trying to pay bills

And keep a family.

Julia like me,

Has no children, see.

I am an atheist

Like the Aussie PM

Who needs to change

The law so that she

Won’t do what her father

Had to, in order to

Feed his family.

 

Government call for reform in psychiatric hospitals?!

TONY EASTLEY says, 'The National Mental Health Commission wants to know more about how Australians with mental illnesses are being confined and restrained in institutions.'

 

Other protests: http://www.jeffpolachek.com/blog/269-protests-scheduled-at-apa-annual-meeting-5-5-12-in-philadelphia


for reverse side of Atheist T, click here.