Psychiatry Legal Flaw

Everybody has weak sides of his own. It is a big mistake to believe that perfect systems exist in this world. Psychiatry has also its flaws. Of course, psychiatrists don't disclose skeletons in their cupboard, but there are some.
Let's take a close look.
I have no idea who it works in US, but in some countries, in Russia for example, cops detaining someone need his signature verifying their report listing his wrongdoings. For example, someone was
detained in a subway station being completely drunk. Cops made the report and brutally beat this guy demanding him to sign their bloody report, because he denied to do this. He signed finally, and the report became 'legal'.
This can be funny, although the story itself is really tragic, but cops have less power than psychiatrists, because I've never heard that anyone has ever signed any reports being interviewed by psychiatrist. They don't torture their victims at the first interview because as far as I understand they are been blindly believed by courts and other judicial and law enforcement agencies!
I bet there is no any control in psychiatrists room whatsoever. No video cameras, no microphones.
So theoretically they can write down whatever they want or interpret an interviewee speech according to a particular diagnosis strengthening some symptoms, weakening others etc. Comparison of visitors real words and psychiatrists reports may become a great scandal, because potential patients have no means to check what psychiatrist write in their papers.
The situation I've just outlined is extremely disgusting, because even in the dungeons of most brutal regimes secret police officers always demand signature as the sign of their victims agreement.
But the strength of psychiatrists is also their weakness. Theoretically it is possible to oppose their words in a courtroom or in other legal agencies, just saying the plain truth: 'This doctor has never shown me any records of my interview, I've signed none of them, so I'm not quite sure that his records objectively cover my mental state'.
This is a big deal, it is related so constitutional rights of every person in every country, it is related to the principle of informed consent practised in many societies etc. Of course a judge can reply that he has no reasons to disbelieve psychiatrist. This is a very powerful argument I don't know how to oppose at the moment. But I think that I've shown that psychiatry has some significant weaknesses from the legal point of view.
PS. I wonder what will happen if a visitor entering psychiatrist's room will ask first: 'Will i be able to read, sign or disprove your record of our conversation'?

Yes, i agree this is their weakness. I noticed nothing went my way until the private attorney my parents had hired for me started to subpoena all their records about me. That's when they let go of me just to stop him from doing what he was doing to them.

Ultimately their Achilles heel is the fact that what they do to us is unconstitutional but unless we have a good high quality (and sadly expensive) lawyer on our side no one listens to us and no one cares that our rights are being trampled over.

I think our fight against psychiatry could make the most meaningful difference if we focused on getting better funding for public defender attorneys in the mental health courts. The one I had at first was a joke. Just going through the motions and spent like 5 minutes talking to me before the hearing.

epthe wrote:Yes, i agree this is their weakness. I noticed nothing went my way until the private attorney my parents had hired for me started to subpoena all their records about me. That's when they let go of me just to stop him from doing what he was doing to them.

Ultimately their Achilles heel is the fact that what they do to us is unconstitutional but unless we have a good high quality (and sadly expensive) lawyer on our side no one listens to us and no one cares that our rights are being trampled over.

I think our fight against psychiatry could make the most meaningful difference if we focused on getting better funding for public defender attorneys in the mental health courts. The one I had at first was a joke. Just going through the motions and spent like 5 minutes talking to me before the hearing.

I didn't get to talk to my public defender for 3 months. It didn't matter anyway. She did nothing to help me get found competent to stand trial on a misdemeanor. She wanted me to get found incompetent and insane - that way she WON her case.

The best way the best way to fight against psychiatry is to fight for elimination of involuntary treatment. That would eliminate virtually all abuses. And it's so simple.

Parador wrote:

epthe wrote:Yes, i agree this is their weakness. I noticed nothing went my way until the private attorney my parents had hired for me started to subpoena all their records about me. That's when they let go of me just to stop him from doing what he was doing to them.

Ultimately their Achilles heel is the fact that what they do to us is unconstitutional but unless we have a good high quality (and sadly expensive) lawyer on our side no one listens to us and no one cares that our rights are being trampled over.

I think our fight against psychiatry could make the most meaningful difference if we focused on getting better funding for public defender attorneys in the mental health courts. The one I had at first was a joke. Just going through the motions and spent like 5 minutes talking to me before the hearing.

I didn't get to talk to my public defender for 3 months. It didn't matter anyway. She did nothing to help me get found competent to stand trial on a misdemeanor. She wanted me to get found incompetent and insane - that way she WON her case.

The best way the best way to fight against psychiatry is to fight for elimination of involuntary treatment. That would eliminate virtually all abuses. And it's so simple.

I agree in an ideal world ending involuntary treatment would solve our problem, but in reality I can see that's never going to happen. The government, the media, hell even the general public will never go for that. But fighting for better public defenders is a small battle we might actually have a chance of winning. Having a private attorney is all that saved me from Assisted Outpatient Treatment in the s.m.i. system, but most people can't afford a private attorney. If we could get better public defenders, who were actually on our side and cared about us enough to fight for what was best for us, it might make a difference.

And yes, I'm seeing and reading more and more about these mental health courts taking minor misdemeanor cases and fooling the defendants into thinking that it is in their best interest to submit to psychiatric diversion programs rather than taking their chances in the normal criminal justice system. Most of them have no clue that they would be so much better off in the normal criminal justice system, probably getting a small fine and little or no jail time. Even if they get a significant amount of jail time, it at least has a set definite amount of time they have to be in jail and then they get out. As you know, the alternative is much worse with no set amount of time in custody and being subjected to forced drugging.

epthe wrote:I agree in an ideal world ending involuntary treatment would solve our problem, but in reality I can see that's never going to happen. The government, the media, hell even the general public will never go for that. But fighting for better public defenders is a small battle we might actually have a chance of winning. Having a private attorney is all that saved me from Assisted Outpatient Treatment in the s.m.i. system, but most people can't afford a private attorney. If we could get better public defenders, who were actually on our side and cared about us enough to fight for what was best for us, it might make a difference.

And yes, I'm seeing and reading more and more about these mental health courts taking minor misdemeanor cases and fooling the defendants into thinking that it is in their best interest to submit to psychiatric diversion programs rather than taking their chances in the normal criminal justice system. Most of them have no clue that they would be so much better off in the normal criminal justice system, probably getting a small fine and little or no jail time. Even if they get a significant amount of jail time, it at least has a set definite amount of time they have to be in jail and then they get out. As you know, the alternative is much worse with no set amount of time in custody and being subjected to forced drugging.

Even well paid and not overworked public defenders are going to let people get railroaded into psych hospitals. Because that's how they get 'help'. They don't see it as 'help' but as help. Also it's how they win their cases. It's not a win for their clients but it goes down as a win for the lawyer - got someone found not guilty. Yippeee!! They see it as a criminal defense lawyer's fiduciary duty to clients with mental disability. See here:
https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/vie ... facultypub

That is a problem which could be overcome by fighting for both better funding and reforms in how the public defenders are rewarded and retained. It's a winnable fight, in my opinion, and worth fighting for.

But they're never going to let us dismantle the psychiatric industry which is built upon involuntary treatment.

For the here and now, if someone is reading this, do everything in your power to get a private attorney rather than relying on a public defender. It could very well mean the difference between your freedom to make your own decisions or being forced to take meds for the rest of your life.

epthe wrote:That is a problem which could be overcome by fighting for both better funding and reforms in how the public defenders are rewarded and retained. It's a winnable fight, in my opinion, and worth fighting for.

But they're never going to let us dismantle the psychiatric industry which is built upon involuntary treatment.

For the here and now, if someone is reading this, do everything in your power to get a private attorney rather than relying on a public defender. It could very well mean the difference between your freedom to make your own decisions or being forced to take meds for the rest of your life.

I don't think that high a percentage of psychiatric business is involuntary. The reason societies don't want to give up involuntary 'treatment' is that it is a good tool of political oppression. It's also a good way to get annoying people out of sight.

Look at the Ted Kasynski case - he had a highly respected lawyer who still wouldn't do what Kasinski wanted. He wanted to get a trial but she threatened to have him ruled insane so he would take a plea bargain for life in prison.

Theoretically, complete silence and cooperation denial will hindrance dramatically any investigation and ruin psychiatric labelling completely.
Self-report is the only source of information for psychiatrists. They need someone to speak, even the most trivial stuff which will be construed in the 'correct' way according to DSM criteria, but they need words.
Law enforcement agencies also need them dramatically but their methods are more scientific, there is a deal of objectivity there. They use other kinds evidences except self-evidence.

Polozker wrote:Theoretically, complete silence and cooperation denial will hindrance dramatically any investigation and ruin psychiatric labelling completely.
Self-report is the only source of information for psychiatrists. They need someone to speak, even the most trivial stuff which will be construed in the 'correct' way according to DSM criteria, but they need words.
Law enforcement agencies also need them dramatically but their methods are more scientific, there is a deal of objectivity there. They use other kinds evidences except self-evidence.

Even if someone refused to talk to the shrink it doesn't stop other people from talking. I think a psychiatrist would probably do an evaluation based on what 3rd parties said. Or a judge could lock you up indefinitely like they do when you are found incompetent to stand trial.

Polozker wrote:I bet there is no any control in psychiatrists room whatsoever. No video cameras, no microphones. So theoretically they can write down whatever they want or interpret an interviewee speech according to a particular diagnosis strengthening some symptoms, weakening others etc.

What do people do when they see a wallet on a busy sidewalk? Take the time to return it to the owner or take the money and trash what's left? Chances are, few (if any) will see what happened. The person who picks it up already decided what they'll do, and knows nobody will stop them.

It's not difficult to understand why a person would return it to the rightful owner, intact, or why another would steal the money. What's difficult is trying to decide which kind of person they are before knowing how they would choose. As I see it, that's usually the situation when deciding which psychiatrist/psychologist to work with.

Not many can know if the person they're seeing would have the integrity to return the wallet to the owner. For that matter, few can know what motivations another keeps hidden from others, and take advantage of a situation when it's presented. Especially when the one they're taking advantage of either doesn't realize it or has no indisputable proof.

On one hand, caveat emptor applies, as one is paying a fee for someone's expertise, much as one would pay an electrician for their expertise to wire a new room. On the other hand, there is recourse with an electrician; one can sue and prove them incompetent by the evidence of faulty wiring. What's the recourse with a psychiatrist when there's obviously no physical evidence? What can be proved?

I agree that an expensive shark of an attorney with experience can be a life saver, but not everyone has that choice. My 2¢ may sound absurd but what about bringing a tape recorder to a session? If the psychiatrist does not agree, can you take your business elsewhere? In an initial interview, can the recorder be introduced as your requirement for the use and protection of both client and analyst? I ask because many years ago a psychologist introduced it to me for those same reasons. I agreed as she had a dual cassette deck that recorded two tapes at the same time. At the end of the session she gave me one of them.