Involuntary Treatment and British Columbia

By Susan Inman Guest Blogger with an Introduction by Marvin Ross


On Monday, I discussed the recognition that Erin Hawkes-Emiru is receiving from British Columbia via their Courage to Come Back designation. As I pointed out, Erin was able to recover in large part because of forced treatment which she credits with saving her life. I was then going to write about the United Nations convention on the rights of people with disabilities which does not allow for the policies that saved Erin and saved countless others. However, Susan beat me to it in her article on the changes being proposed in BC which should concern us all as similar attempts are always being proposed in other jurisdictions. This is what Susan has to say:

Susan Inman Author of After Her Brain Broke Helping My Daughter Recover her Sanity


BC Ombudsperson’s recommendations for improving involuntary treatment:

mostly good but also alarming

BC Ombudsperson Jay Chalke has released a new report: Committed to Change: Protecting the Rights of Involuntary Patients under the Mental Health Act. Most of its recommendations for protecting the rights of involuntary psychiatric inpatients are sensible. Chalke’s investigation, which led to this report, revealed that too often many of the procedures prescribed in the BC Mental Health Act aren’t being followed. Most of these involved failures to complete necessary legal documentation. Chalke’s plans call for retraining of hospital staff and physicians on these protections and regular audits of hospitals to ensure compliance is occurring.

However, Chalke has moved far beyond ensuring that current procedures are followed. He is now proposing that we introduce lawyers into involuntary care in ways that will likely be disastrous for many of the vulnerable people he is trying to protect. The new policy would see patients not just receive information about their options in regard to involuntary care, but actual advice (Recommendations #21 – #24). The supposedly independent staff supplying rights information and advice and then eventual legal counsel will be the taxpayer-funded services of the Community Legal Assistance Society (CLAS) , a branch of the Legal Services Society (Legal Aid BC). CLAS is not “independent” as the Ombudsperson requires. CLAS has a record of extreme opposition to contemporary, evidence-based psychiatry and therefore cannot give unbiased advice as required.

Last year, CLAS released a document about involuntary treatment, Operating in Darkness, that Chalke references in his report. A careful reading of the CLAS document shows how it is informed by an anti-psychiatry belief that involuntary treatment violates human rights. CLAS is the group, in the current charter challenge to BC’s Mental Health Act, that argues that all involuntary medical treatment of psychiatric patients, both inpatient care and mandated outpatient care, should be abolished. CLAS falsely claims, as will be discussed below, that proven antipsychotic medications are ineffective in helping recovery from psychosis and aiding release from involuntary hospitalization.

Chalke is clearly knowledgeable about mental illnesses. He writes that people who are detained are “suffering and in need of immediate treatment but, perhaps because of that illness, are unwilling or unable to accept it. In these situations, the state can step in with the greatest power it has – the right to remove a

person’s liberty by detaining and treating them.”

CLAS’s approach to severe mental illnesses is different than Chalke’s. In its 181-page document, it never acknowledges the existence of people who, when they become psychotic, are unable to understand that they need treatment. It is people with psychotic disorders, often schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, who often end up needing involuntary treatment at certain points as they try to manage these severe brain disorders.

CLAS’s approach to mental illnesses

CLAS’s Operating in Darkness strongly supports the controversial interpretation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and its opposition to involuntary treatment. This interpretation is made by the CRPD Committee that is overseeing its implementation. Readers may think that because Canada ratified this document, provincial mental health acts that allow involuntary treatment are defying its principles. CLAS fails to mention that since Canada’s 2006 ratification, it has continued to maintain the right to use substitute decision makers (such as physicians) in cases where a person lacks the capacity to make a decision.

CLAS also never mentions that the CRPD Committee calls for the elimination of all mental health acts. CLAS never grapples with the consequences of these kinds of policies, which are the increasing incarceration of people with mental illnesses. The CRPD Committee goes even further and calls for the elimination of the “not criminally responsible” defense. This would mean that forensic hospitals, which treat people whose mental illnesses are understood to have caused their crimes, would be eliminated. Anyone convicted of crimes leading to incarceration, no matter how mentally ill they were or are, would be regarded as fully responsible for their actions and forced into the general prison population.

CLAS’s descriptions of medical treatments for mental illness do not reflect the neutral position the Ombudsperson wants. CLAS implies that medical treatments are worse than useless. It argues that anti-psychotic medications “do not combat psychosis like antibiotics combat bacteria” and instead are just used to “have a sedative effect that alters behavior.” This description fails to mention that antipsychotic medications are used to get people out of psychosis.

Psychosis is a condition characterized by delusions, hallucinations, and disorganized speech, thoughts or behavior that can make it impossible for people to manage daily life. CLAS’s source for its information is a psychiatrist for madinamerica, a site that rejects standard, evidence-based psychiatric practices. It focuses on the views of “psychiatric survivors,” people who believe they suffered from encounters with psychiatry and medications they didn’t need. CLAS’s approach to mental illnesses resembles the ideas promoted by this group. Its advice will encourage patients to reject involuntary treatment and to use CLAS’s legal services in review panels and in court challenges.

Vast research supports the benefits of antipsychotic medications to help people manage to live with severe psychotic disorders. One of the largest longitudinal studies (over 8,000 people) and longest (20 years) was recently conducted in Finland. In following up on patients treated for first episode schizophrenia, researchers found that “The lowest risk of re-hospitalization or death was observed for patients who received antipsychotic treatment continuously….”

Besides ignoring research that doesn’t fit with madinamerica’s views, CLAS also ignores testimony of people living with schizophrenia. While its document is full of comments from selected patients who don’t want involuntary treatment, it fails to include testimony from the growing number of people living with psychotic disorders who describe how involuntary treatment benefitted them. Some like Joseph Bowers ( have been learning to live with their illness over many years. Bowers writes,

I’m near seventy, healthy, a husband and father who is retired with enough money coming in. None of this could have happened without involuntary treatment. My civil liberties were not taken away when force medicated and treated. I was instead liberated from the tyranny of serious psychosis.

Vancouver based peer support worker and author Erin Hawkes recounts in her article “Forced Medication Saved My Life” the agony of her psychotic episodes before antipsychotic medication restored her sanity.

In this BC Schizophrenia Society educational video, Vancouver peer worker Bryn Ditmars describes what it was like to be psychotic and believe he was the messiah. Ditmars and a psychiatrist from Vancouver’s Early Psychosis Intervention program, as well as a parent, offer the kind of information that madinamerica and CLAS avoid.

Bowers, Hawkes and Ditmar, like many people in psychosis, had anosognosia, a brain based inability to understand that they were ill. Anosognosia is the reason psychotic people usually don’t want treatment. CLAS and madinamerica writers won’t acknowledge the existence of this condition, because once it is accepted, the flawed thinking in using a human rights argument to ban involuntary treatment can be seen. Leaving people trapped in psychosis and untreated is not a policy that a just, responsible society adopts; it ignores people’s rights to be treated and recover.

CLAS does mention the lack of adequate psychosocial treatments in psychiatric units. Introducing people to these additional treatments during this time can not only make the stay in the hospital more therapeutic, but can give them ideas about what to pursue in the future. However, CLAS supports the inclusion of the Hearing Voices Network. The Vancouver Hearing Voices Network’s study group, funded by taxpayers, studies the works favoured by those who agree with madinamerica’s approaches. For instance, this announcement advertises the kind of writer the group favours, in this case Will Hall. Hall is best known for explaining why and how people should stop taking anti-psychotic medications.

While CLAS’s anecdotes reject or minimize the value of antipsychotic treatment, my experiences in the community are very different. Antipsychotics, and brief involuntary treatment when needed, have allowed my daughter and her friends who live with schizophrenia to enjoy stable lives.

Why we need to learn from the US’s mistakes

The current situation in BC is part of a larger struggle in Canada, the US and internationally. Influential but misguided human and disability rights groups, with perspectives like those of CLAS, have exerted a wide influence on mental health legislation, policies and services. The US provides the most extreme example of what happens when these perspectives are allowed to be in control of federal government policies.

Despite its mandate to provide care for people with serious mental illnesses when it was established in 1992, the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) experimented with promoting an increasingly de-medicalized approach to mental illnesses. It actively supported anti-psychiatry groups and policies. When a Congressional committee began investigating SAMHSA after the Sandy Hook massacre, it was headed by a lawyer. The investigations revealed that SAMHSA hadn’t include any psychiatrists or physicians among its over 500 federal employees; this discovery led to it appointing its first Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Elinore McCance-Katz. McCance-Katz eventually quit and wrote an expose ( in which she described the alternative beliefs, similar to those that CLAS supports, that dominated this powerful organization. In her article, “The Federal Government Ignores the Treatment Needs of Americans with Serious Mental Illness,” she wrote:

There is a perceptible hostility toward psychiatric medicine: a resistance to addressing the treatment needs of those with serious mental illness and a questioning by some at SAMHSA as to whether mental disorders even exist—for example, is psychosis just a “different way of thinking for some experiencing stress?”

The policies at SAMHSA had resulted in much less access to treatment for serious mental illnesses. The consequences are that individuals with serious mental illnesses like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are now ten times more likely to be incarcerated than in a hospital bed. Finally, during the end of the Obama administration, Congress took action that resulted in the establishment of an Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services. Appointed to that position, McCance-Katz now heads SAMHSA and a major goal is the treatment of serious mental illnesses. McCance-Katz not only recognizes the existence of anosognosia, but educates the workforce and the public about it.

One of SAMHSA’s major focuses now is the development of Assisted Outreach Treatment (AOT) programs, the extensively researched programs that reduce homelessness, re-hospitalizations and interactions with the criminal justice system. This is exactly the kind of program that CLAS actively opposes. In its challenge to the BC Mental Health Act, it made clear that it not only wants to stop any inpatient involuntary treatment, but opposes mandated outpatient treatment programs that now operate under extended leave services. People in these programs have shown that they need this additional support to avoid continual relapses. Participants are regularly assessed to see if mandated treatment is still needed.

In the US, prisons have gradually become the new mental institutions and federally funded legal advocates contributed to this problem. In its inception in 1986, the US Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act (PAIMI) was designed to protect this population from all kinds of abuses. It operates in the kinds of roles suggested for CLAS in the Ombudsperson’s recommendations. However, despite the intention, legal advocates focused on and became very skillful at blocking efforts to provide mandated treatment. PAIMI legal advocates persuade ill people who have been hospitalized to avoid treatment. In front of a Congressional committee, Joe Bruce ) explained how PAIMI legal advocates in Maine persuaded and assisted his very psychotic son to reject medications and get out of the hospital. The son went home and killed his mother whom he believed to be an al Qaeda operative. Once he was treated with medications he’d previously been persuaded he didn’t need, he came out of psychosis. He talked to reporters about how he misses his mother.

What Should Happen

The BC Ombudsperson’s recommendation for funding CLAS to provide rights advice to involuntary inpatients is dangerous. CLAS’s opposition to all involuntary psychiatric treatment will surely mean that they won’t simply provide information on rights and options for appeal. When we see how CLAS views contemporary psychiatry, we can understand how vulnerable people will be persuaded to resist treatments they need. Clinicians, like social workers and nurses, who have a background in working with patients with mental illness, can be trained to provide this service in a neutral manner. This would be much easier and less expensive than trying to train lawyers and legal advocates about severe mental illnesses if they are already ideologically opposed to involuntary treatment.

If, as recommended in the Ombudsperson’s report, legislation is proposed to hire CLAS to supply legal advocates to provide advice, to argue at every review panel, and to pursue court challenges of review panel decisions, there should be extensive publicity about these plans. Impartial lawyers on review panels are already present to ensure legal procedures are followed.

Investing significant funds to greatly expand the role of lawyers in mental health care will come at the expense of already underfunded mental health services.

For instance, for several years there has been great interest in having evidence-based cognitive remediation programs implemented in BC. The common cognitive losses accompanying schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders are extensively researched; these losses frequently appear before any other symptoms or any treatments begin. Cognitive losses include difficulty with concentration, problem-solving, short term and working memory, and judgment. It is these losses that are considered to be the biggest factors in the ongoing and widespread disability of this population.

The many families that I know who are supporting people with severe mental illnesses did not hear about any consultations that occurred in creating these alarming recommendations. Family caregivers for people with severe mental illnesses should be consulted about the services they want protected, those that need to be implemented, and their opinions about those that pose dangers. People struggling with severe illnesses are part of a population who are unable to represent themselves in contentious public debates, and they are certainly not represented by the psychiatric-survivor community with whom CLAS communicates.

Life is hard for people who, through no fault of their own, develop serious brain disorders. The larger community must ensure that misguided policies don’t make life even harder.

Blog Posts


15 thoughts on “Involuntary Treatment and British Columbia

  1. The situation in the U.S. has gotten even worse than what you describe Susan. The state mental institutions that still exist, (all with greatly reduced capacity), are now almost entirely forensic institutions. They are no longer civil institutions. In most states no one can can admitted for long term care when needed without first falling into the criminal justice system.
    Despite much improved treatment options than when I was first committed in 1964, I consider myself lucky to have gotten seriously ill then rather than now because the likelihood I would receive available treatment before a tragedy was much greater then than now.
    Joseph Bowers

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thank you, Joseph, for making your story available to the public. You condense essential advocacy issues into such a concise narrative. I hope more people will keep referring readers to your blog with its powerful evidence of the value of treatment.


      1. Excellent article Susan, Thank you. The anti-psychiatry people do such harm . The fact that they have had a foot in the door of powerful well funded international organizations is a warning to us all. Mercy must season justice !

        Liked by 1 person

    2. Yes Joseph you have stated the reality that being untreated when trapped in a psychosis can and almost does lead to tragedy for the afflicted, their families and society.. Real choices are not present when a psychosis dictates the narrative. Autononomy can only be appreciated when the person has been restored to sanity by effective medication. That IS FACT. I have met many people who have major mental illness, who like you, will speak truth to power.

      Seldom do the anti-psychiatry people allow the above fact to enter their dangerous dialogue. Many years ago during the Bob Rae’s Premiership in Ontario, a bill was passed that would enable a band of anti-psychiatry prosleytizers to enter homes and persuade ill people to avoid treatment. I know about what went on in those committees the nature of their plans because I was appointed to the implementation committee by the then Friends of Schizophrenic ( Later to become SSO) I listened to the intent of that committee and the the anti-treattment slant for weeks on end. It was chaired by anti treatment lawyers from the Advocacy Centre.

      The frequent travel from Kingston to Toronto was probably the most waring thing that I have ever participated in . When I suggested that it would be immoral not to give a diabetic an injection of insulin when a person was slipping into a coma, one lawyer actually said “but they are making a choice ” Also they described the syringe of insulin as an assault !!!!. My only ally on that committee was a family member dealing with a loved one with Alzeimer’s . The other could see jobs jobs jobs for themselves and their brigade.

      FORTUNATELY the next Ontario Government overturned the Bill and it was never implemented. Imagine a so called anti treatment advocate gaining access to the abode of someone afflicted with Schizophrenia or major bi-polar.

      But those anti-treatment types have wormed their way into other outfits in Ontario to influence policy. CERTAIN ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS IN ONTARIO HAVE BECOME HOT BEDS OF ANTI-PSYCHIATRIC ACTIVITY. Beware, BC do not let them get a foot in the door. to spread their dangerous AND IRRESPONSIBLE words.. Their message is a cruel one.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. In October 2017 a CAMH psychologist published a manual : ” Supporting a family member with schizophrenia”
    The manual and the accompanying videos were totally ignored …( I may be the only one still checking the site ).
    Why ?
    The consumers and the antipsychiatry crowd speak with aplomb, only a few families dare to speak.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yes Annick. This is further evidence that these people are playing the piper and so confused families and patients might well be led down the path to further disaster. Persons with psychotic illnesses with the anti -psych crowd hardly stand a chance. However where are the anti psych brigade when somebody is living in squalor on the street. ? The chair of the committee that I mentioned in my comment above actually said” I know lots of people that you describe ” and then she said “families should not have to look after them” To which i replied …. “families are the only ones who care enough to try and get help. They stay around long after the rest of the “supposed to help folks” have long gone. What a cheek had that lawyer !

      Liked by 1 person

  3. And now an illustration of nonsense.

    I can vouch for the extreme cost, both financial and emotional for a Review Board in Ontario, for patients who have anosognosia. I have witnessed several in our Province of Ontario because I have accompanied families on many occasions. Sometimes to wait outside. sometimes as a witness.
    One such patient a well educated man who had gone untreated for at least two decades is a crucial example of extreme torture for everyone concerned. Though some benefited finically for from the many hearings An attempt was made to get this patient treated ten years earlier via an entry through emergency by using probably a Justice of the Peace order. He was not admitted! even though a psychiatrist had helped the family try and use the emergency option. Emergency failed to consult a psychiatrist on the way through and so he was released. ( The patient had lived with his parents for decades. and was very very hard to live with extremely ill and quite abusive verbally Trapped in very serious delusions.

    Fast forward ten years and this time the psychiatrist went to the home; and the patient was admitted via emergency under the Mental Health ACT

    Then came the 9 review Boards that would follow for about twelve months as an inpatient. No treatment could be given during that time because of the way the legislation played out! Imagine the cost at many many thousand dollars a session.
    His father and mother were present. So was i . I was a witness at the first one. The poor patient challenged my identity and told me I was not who I was! He ordered me to search my purse for my ID. This was in front of the board. the parents, After that I kept a tidy purse!!!!

    His lawyer, lawyer chair of the board , the patient’s Psychiatrist , Lay person appointed to panel independent psychiatrist. ( for this position that person cannot appear for the same patient more than once. Thus they had to bring someone new for an independent psychiatrist each time… often from a different place. Also course myself after I had given evidence.

    At the first hearing, it was absolutely clear that the patient was profoundly delusional and very paranoid. His father exposed this by asking him gently but firmly many questions. Delusions auditory etc were plain to all.

    The patient acted more or less as his own lawyer and managed to be pseudo professional but the patient’s lawyer told me that she knew he needed help, but that she was just doing her job according to the law. ” the law is an ass” said Mr Bumble I thought as I swallowed hard. I remembered…. the witness and the family must be credible!

    Nine review boards, before he was treated and he eventually stabilized under treatment. For the next few years he drove his mother to Doctor’s appointments and to church She is now in a retirement home at 97.and her car packed up ! He lives by himself in the community with support and visits his mother all the time. He is now a senior citizen very polite with a clever humour and is loving towards his mother. Not all the delusions were held at bay but he can live with them

    A very long story but there are many others somewhat like it that ! could share.

    All this is set up under the Ontario Law, it is mind bogglingly STUPID , cruel and a much better use of health care dollars is merited . For Pete’s sake is the Mental Health Care SYSTEM MAD

    MAD ….. BUT a lot of lawyers are earning money and of course Doctors time is at a great premium. All day in a Review Board… think of that, when there is a waiting list for DOCS .!

    I have other mind boggling examples of this process. And one of the well known anti- psychiatric treatment people ( ex patient) made her way onto the list of available laypeople for the review board panels . Available no doubt at any time. i suspect. There is i believe a very decent honorarium. More on that topic later.

    NO B.C, DO NOT GO DOWN THIS DARK ROUTE. Mercy must season justice!

    Liked by 1 person

  4. “It focuses on the views of “psychiatric survivors,” people who believe they suffered from encounters with psychiatry and medications they didn’t need.”

    And they do not count???

    Denying their existence is analogous to claiming that there are no innocents on death row.

    (Sorry for the poor analogy, but still, same logic)


    1. Dear F68.10,

      I absolutely agree that psychiatric survivors exist. In fact, I think that they have been very successful in organizing themselves and advocating for policies based on their beliefs.

      My concern is that policies that don’t recognize the existence of people living with psychotic disorders and anosognosia actually harm this population. As my article discusses, I believe that some of the recommendations from the BC Ombudsperson will result in people being left in untreated psychosis. There are often disastrous consequences for people, when in the name of human rights and freedom of choice, we leave them trapped in their illness.



      1. “I absolutely agree that psychiatric survivors exist. In fact, I think that they have been very successful in organizing themselves and advocating for policies based on their beliefs.”

        Thank you for acknowledging reality when it comes to the existence of psychiatric “survivors”.

        Whether or not we should judge that they have been successful can only be objectively made if we agree on what success is. I believe that according to your own criteria, they have been successful. According to my criteria, they haven’t. In order to judge whether your statement is true or not, we should agree on how “success” should be defined. Please state your criterion.

        You are using the term “belief” to describe the motivations underlying their position. While I believe there are beliefs in their “beliefs”, you haven’t substantiated your case when it comes to describing their position as being mostly motivated by beliefs. Your contradictors also accuse your side of having beliefs. A more rational discussion is therefore needed on this topic.

        “My concern is that policies that don’t recognize the existence of people living with psychotic disorders and anosognosia actually harm this population.”

        My perspective is that legislation clearly “recognizes” the existence of people living with “psychotic” “disorders” and “anosognosia”. I won’t comment on the rest, as my comment is already a rather long one. As we do not live in the same countries, I do not rule out that the situation may be different.

        I won’t comment on data I may have, and I won’t frenetically crawl the Internet to get it. As a courtesy to me, to the lurkers on this blog, and to the ethics of the socratic practice of rational thought, I believe it is your job to put an explicit link to the ombudsman recommandation so that we all can have a look at it.

        I simply wish to state that you yourself have stated that these are “recommandations”. As far as I understand what “recommandations” are about, they are not the law of the land. I believe any rational person does not fail to perceive that important distinction.


      2. “I won’t comment on data I may have”

        Sorry for the mistake in presenting my thought:

        “I won’t comment on data I do not have”.


  5. Dear F69.10,

    The first hyperlink in my article is to the recommendations:

    And, the Ombudsperson’s report makes clear that the plan is to have all these recommendations implemented in BC within a year.

    By success, I mean that psychiatric survivors have become very influential. In fact, in some cases they have been given the power to represent people with severe mental illnesses. It is my belief that they should not be given this power. People who don’t believe in the existence of psychotic disorders like schizophrenia and the existence of anosognosia shouldn’t ethically even be willing to speak for this population.



    1. Thank you, Susan.

      I’ve read the webpage you sent me, not the report yet. I hope to come around reading the report, and will re-comment after I have.

      Nothing I’ve read on the webpage has surprised me. Typically:

      “The report finds legally required admission documents were missing, late or improperly completed including forms outlining reasons for detention, consent and description of treatment, notification of a patient’s rights and notification to relatives.”

      And the rest is even more hair-raising.

      This specific fact is rather well-known, both by patients, parents, and mental health professionals. However, mental health professionals often denied it; and the lay public was kept uninformed of that point; and political authorities, well who knows what they really thought on the topic… I hope you do not deny that this is a fact, and that you cannot have an honest discussion on such a topic in the public sphere if such facts are denied.

      On its own, it warrants investigations, and further actions.

      Does the ombudsman in British Columbia have any real power? I’m ignorant of that.

      “It is my belief that they should not be given this power. People who don’t believe in the existence of psychotic disorders like schizophrenia and the existence of anosognosia shouldn’t ethically even be willing to speak for this population.”

      As you said it, it is your “belief”. You should support it with evidence and logic.

      “Believing in the existence of schizophrenia” or the “existence of anosognosia” is a rather complicated question, and is not only a question of “belief”. These concepts are a bit like “science”.

      Here’s a usual quote on the topic.

      “Science.” You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

      So let’s stick to the concept of anosognosia before diving in the more complicated concept of schizophrenia. What does it mean not to “believe” in anosognosia? I’ve met almost no one that doesn’t “believe” that some people deny or do not care about being ill. Please prove me wrong (I’m sure there are counter-examples to my claim, but I’d be very curious to know whether or not they are being strawmaned).

      I, myself, could not care less whether I’m ill or not. And in fact, I’m clearly progressively on a very very dire path with huge health consequences. Will I try to do something about it? Yes. Will I see a doctor? Clearly no. Do I not believe in science? No, I’m a hardcore promoter of science. Why do I not want to see a doctor? Well because very bad things will happen to him if that happens…

      Please tell me: Am I “anosognosiac”? Do I “believe” or not in “anosognosia”?

      I have my own answers to these two questions. What’s YOUR judgement call when it comes to these two questions? I find it important, because depending on your answer, you will logically deny me the opportunity to represent people like myself. Everyone needs to understand what are the practical and moral consequences of what you call your “belief”.

      Hence my perhaps provocative statement: “Anosognosia.” You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


      1. I read up to page 70 of the report. It’s devastating. I feel very much, how do “social justice warriors” say? Yeah: emotionally “triggered”. Can’t emotionally read more…

        Moreover, the documented lack of information on these legal forms is not only a crime against patients. It’s also a crime against Science (yes, with a capital ‘S’), as it precludes scientific research being done by academics with an ‘antipsychiatry’ leaning.

        It’s indeed very tough to confront medical bullshit with facts and logic. Thanks to the ombudsman for having done so! Very much appreciated!

        Given that text, I do not see what’s ethically wrong with including psychiatric ‘survivors’ in an overview process of psychiatric practice. I need arguments to be convinced that it would be a bad thing…


      2. Sigh.

        I reviewed the evidence linking “neuroanatomic anosognosia” with “unawareness in schizophrenia”.

        Best evidence I found is this one:

        “Yet the analogy between unawareness in schizophrenia and anosognosia is not yet definitive and unquestionable.”

        So I’m not committing a Sin (capital ‘S’) against Science (capital ‘S’) when not “believing” that the neuroanatomic concept of anognosia is “proved” to be linked with unawareness in schizophrenia. I’m following mainstream evidence and mainstream Science, as far as I can see.

        I’ll stop here, not to pollute the blog further.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s