 |
Report Comment
"If you wouldn’t let a surgeon who had not been proven to be entirely unreliable operate on you, leave your kids with a not entirely unreliable sitter, or take your dog to an NEU vet, why would you treat human beings that way? This must be one of those “let them eat cake” policies.
As NEU “expert witnesses”, psychiatrists are different from Doctors in other medical disciplines. First, the law effectively requires all the other doctors to use methods and treatments proven by scientific evidence to work. And second, they can be sued for malpractice if they don’t. That’s a critical difference that the Supreme Court should and might have recognized, perhaps if it had not been so blinded by its own fear and loathing of people with mental illnesses.
It’s like the difference between nutritional supplements and prescription drugs. Drug manufacturers are highly regulated and liable for their mistakes, as well as false and misleading claims. Makers of nutritional supplements, in large part, aren’t. Like the health food industry, psychiatry can claim almost anything about the benefits of its products, and doesn’t have to prove it. The Supreme Court, in its not entirely unreliable infinite wisdom, says so.
Of course, if anyone says that our NEU legislatures and courts treat people with mental illnesses like the Nazis treated Gypsy and Jews, they must be delusional. The Soviets were much more beneficent. They allowed Gypsies and Jews to serve in the Red Army, killing Germans and clearing land mines. Generally by marching into one and over the other. See now, that can be proven to work.
I submit that the Supreme Courts decisions effectively establishing the unquestionable infallibility of NEU psychiatry have led directly to horrific abuses against people both with and without mental illnesses. Go back, if you will, to my post in this series on about April 18th of this year, and use the links for the Houston Chronicle “profitable addiction” series. You will find that in the years following the Supreme Court decisions, psychiatric hospitals engaged in false and malicious practices that literally sent out bounty hunters to abduct even healthy people off the street, so that the hospitals could suck their insurance dry of psychiatric care benefits. About the same time, if I remember correctly, Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder held hearings looking into the matter, and found that military families were especially targeted, because of relatively rich benefits.
I contend that local organizations like the Tulsa Police Department, COPES, TCBH and the Mental Health Court have followed in this tradition, using flawed Oklahoma Mental Health Law to forcibly “treat” people, whether they need it or not, using methods that have not and cannot be proven with scientific experiment and evidence to be safe and effective. Perhaps the only difference is that they hit up taxpayers instead of insurance companies. Are you feeling grateful yet? "
|
|
