Pink Belette: La psiquiatrie en France/ Psychiatry in France

La psychiatrie en France, zone de non-droit (par Pink Belette)

Une patiente française sous contrainte fait son « audit » dans le cadre de la campagne pour soutenir l’Abolition totale des soins et de l’hospitalisation sans consentement en application de la CDPH de l’ONU

http://depsychiatriser.blogspot.no/2016/03/la-psychiatrie-en-france-zone-de-non.html

 

Pourquoi je suis contre les « soins sous contrainte » :

On pourrait croire que, au pays de la liberté, on a encore droit à son intégrité morale et physique.

Rien n’est plus faux. Par experience, impossible pour quiconque d’échapper à un soin sous contrainte (SPDT, « soin à la demande d’un tiers » ou « péril imminent »).

Il suffit que : une personne la demande (que ce soit la famille, un voisin…), qu’on soit « pas bien », déstabilisé, agité, « instable », en colère, dépressif, sur la défensive, « en opposition », « délirant », amaigri, boulimique, fumeur de shit, drogué…

Il suffit aussi qu’on refuse l’hospitalisation ou un traitement pour que les médecins se relaient pour demander un soin sous contrainte. Une fois hospitalisé, « on » vous fait comprendre que vous perdez vos droits à la personne, l’argument étant : « maintenant on est responsable de vous pour TOUT »… Par contre, vis-à-vis de vous, « on » n’est responsable de rien…

 

Depuis la loi Bachelot du 5 Juillet 2011, en particulier si on a le malheur de contester le diagnostic ou le traitement, c’est alors après la sortie d’hospitalisation qu’on ne peut plus se débarrasser de la contrainte, et c’est là que c’est le plus pervers : injections forcées, consultations obligatoires avec un praticien hospitalier non choisi (à la rigueur, on a le choix entre deux médecins).

Le pire : si on refuse de se rendre au centre médico-psychologique du secteur assigné, la police vient gentiment vous cueillir chez vous pour vous hospitaliser en soins obligatoires à un degré encore plus coercitif (SPDRE, « sur la demande de l’Etat ») et sur un temps plus long et sans contact autorisé avec l’extérieur (!) jusqu’à ce qu’il aient réussi à réduire votre volonté à néant. Ainsi, il arrive que les personnes concernées doivent abandonner leur logement pour « vivre » en psychiatrie (parfois pendant des dizaines d’années, voir le cas de Dimitri Fargette)…

 

Je suis témoin : en France, il y a réellement du souci à se faire…

  1. Il n’y a aucune alternative à la psychiatrie institutionnelle (lobbying des psychiatres ET de l’industrie pharmaceutique contre d’autres formes de thérapies) ;
  2. Aucune littérature ou culture antipsychiatrique (des « survivants », il n’y en a pas…)
  3. L’Ordre des Medecins Psychiatres qui suspend : tout psychiatre « en décalage » avec le système consensuel (d’après le Dr. O.G, psychiatre libéral et ex-chef de clinique) ;
  4. L’Ordre des Medecins Psychiatres qui suspend : un psychiatre responsable de la mort d’une patiente… seulement pour 2 semaines (voir l’affaire Florence Edaine)
  5. La « Mafia des tutelles » : tout patient faisant des séjours répétés est automatiquement placé sous curatelle ou tutelle (sans consentement, c’est renforcé)…
  6. Des mères se voient enlever leurs enfants immédiatement après la pose d’un diagnostic de maladie mentale ; jamais de scandale médiatique…
  7. On fait comprendre aux femmes en âge de procréer qu’il faut surtout adopter la contraception, en sous-entendant qu’on leur enlèverait leur enfant de toute façon. Ce qu’on ne leur dit pas, c’est que tous les neuroleptiques passent la barrière placentaire, c’est pourquoi j’ai entendu parler d’autant de cas d’avortements spontanés chez les femmes sous traitement. Dixit une infirmière, on donne de l’Haldol aux femmes enceintes, ce qui « prouverait » soi-disant « le peu de nocivité de l’Haldol » (!). Jamais d’étude là-dessus ni de scandale médiatique…
  8. Des services fermés qui regorgent de dépressifs qui ne sont pas en « péril imminent » et qui se sentent surtout mal de recevoir par exemple 4(!) antidépresseurs à la fois…
  9. Une cellule d’isolement toujours occupée (appelée « chambre de soins intensifs »!), ce qui participe du « folklore »…
  10. « Abonné une fois, abonné toujours » : les traitements qu’on ne peut plus JAMAIS arrêter ;
  11. Aucune étude à long-terme sur les effets des psychotropes…
  12. Aucun recours en cas d’abus psychiatriques (système interne de « médiation » caduc : mal vous en prend d’écrire une lettre au directeur de l’établissement…)

 

Pourquoi je suis contre ce nouveau système de « Juge des Libertés et Détentions » (relatif à la loi du 27 septembre 2013) :

On vous fait croire que c’est une voie de recours. Rien n’est plus faux, à part en cas de vice de forme (ce qui n’arrive quasiment jamais, puisque les psychiatres ont intérêt à ce que la procédure se passe en bonne et dûe forme). Au contraire, c’est un enfermement de plus…

  1. Le juge n’est pas psychiatre, il se garderait bien de remettre en question le jugement des médecins sur le fond. Par contre, on lui a expliqué que tout patient qui conteste le traitement est en « opposition », ce qui constitue déjà une preuve de « déni de maladie ».
  2. Les médecins y trouvent donc une voie bien pratique pour se décharger de leurs responsabilités, puisque « c’est le juge qui décide ». Et alors on voit défiler les patients dans le bureau du juge, accompagnés d’un soignant : « on vous amène Mme X »…
  3. On vous octroie un avocat commis d’office une semaine avant, mais qu’on ne peut pas contacter avant. Le jour de l’audience, c’est 15 minutes pour faire connaissance et se préparer, et ceci « dans les cases »…
  4. Ce qui est très alarmant, c’est qu’on ne trouve pas d’avocat en libéral, à part peut-être à Paris, et seulement pour un recours aux assises.
  5. Le juge prétexte qu’il ne peut lever le soin sous contrainte si c’est à la demande du directeur de l’établissement. Or, toutes les demandes de mise en soins sous contrainte passent par l’approbation du directeur. Tout le monde se donne bonne conscience, donc ;
  6. Une fois l’audience terminée (10 minutes), où l’on se voit déstabilisé, accusé et mis en doute, le juge « ordonne » le maintien en hospitalisation complète et de la mesure de contrainte, ce qui confère force de loi aux médecins (et donc une impunité totale) et SURTOUT donne encore plus de poids à la mesure.
  7. Inutile de préciser que si on était encore crédible avant, on ne l’est plus du tout et c’est définitif. Si on refuse de signer la feuille ou de comparaître, c’est pire, et on s’attire les foudres des médecins et du personnel soignant, qui vous mettent la pression, vous humilient et vous maltraitent. On ne peut pas non plus refuser que l’audience ait lieu.
  8. Le juge sait pertinemment qu’il s’agit d’une volonté potitique de faire taire les « récalcitrants » par voie chimique et coercitive. Il y adhère donc pleinement.

 

Pourquoi je suis contre les traitements forcés :

J’insiste sur le fait que les psychiatres hospitaliers ont les pleins pouvoirs sur le choix et le dosage des traitements, il ne s’agit JAMAIS d’un consentement éclairé. La « balance bénéfice-risque » est toujours de leur côté, même en cas de surdosage, même si la personne prend déjà 17 médicaments et pèse 200kg (ce qui est le cas d’une amie à qui on a donné Zyprexa ET Xeroquel suite à quoi elle a fait un accident vasculaire cérébral). Ils ne sont jamais responsables des effets secondaires non plus et vous orientent « gentiment » vers votre généraliste…

De plus, c’est toujours les médecins qui « décident » à votre place si vous allez bien ou non, et ce, même s’ils ne vous connaissent pas ou vous on vu seulement 5 minutes…

L’effet pervers de la chose, c’est que c’est tellement insupportable d’être enfermé et camisolé chimiquement qu’au bout d’un mois, on fait semblant d’aller mieux, on renie ses opinions et on arrête de se plaindre des effets secondaires pour pouvoir sortir, sous peine de se voir diagnostiquer en plus des « troubles du comportement » et un « déni de la maladie»…

 

J’AI ETE TORTUREE : au Zyprexa (surdosage), au Solian, au Tercian, au Risperdal (8 mg pour un poids de 50 kg), à l’Haldol (90 gouttes par jour) et « shootée » au Valium (40mg!)…

Le médecin et le personnel infirmier refusaient de prendre en compte : les troubles de l’élocution, tremblements, convulsions, dyskinésies, impatiences insupportables, angoisses mortelles, envie de mourir et tortures psychiques (« enfer » mental) qui ont apparu immédiatement et ont même empiré avec le temps. Je me suis battue en vain en plaidant que les neuroleptiques anesthésient la conscience, font perdre la mémoire, rendent docile et influençable, rendent dépressif et encore plus anxieux, affectent les capacités intellectuelles et détruisent l’âme.

J’ai également été mise plusieurs fois en isolement avec violences de la part du personnel ET des employés de la sécurité, alors que je n’ai JAMAIS été agressive. J’ai été mise sous contention, j’ai été déshabillée de force, j’ai été déshydratée, humiliée, bafouée, maltraitée…

Aujourd’hui, même si j’ai droit à un traitement moins inhumain, l’Abilify en injectable (après une 4ème tentative de suicide), je reste « accro » au Valium, traumatisée et toujours en alerte, dans l’angoisse de manquer à mes « obligations » ou de faire mauvaise impression, sans parler de l’absence totale de perspectives, de motivation et de joie dans ma vie, sans parler de ma vie affective qui est une misère (mort spirituelle, isolation, dépression, anxiété…).

Ma carrière artistique, qui avait débuté avec succès, a été définitivement brisée pendant mes meilleures années (la trentaine) et je suis aujourd’hui dans l’incapacité de créer alors qu’avant je foisonnais d’idées et me donnais les moyens pour les mettre en œuvre. Il est également trop tard et trop compliqué pour moi maintenant pour devenir mère.

Je vis dans la précarité à la charge de l’Etat.

 

Pourquoi j’ai toujours été opposée à leurs « diagnostics » pathologisants :

Je suis une personne ayant vécu les pires traumatismes dans la petite enfance (viols et abus, harcèlement), dont la plupart des souvenirs sont remontés plus de trente ans après, ce qui a grandement affecté mon équilibre psychique. J’ai malheureusement dû constater que, d’après les psychiatres (pour autant qu’ils m’aient crue…), il n’y aurait aucune relation de cause à effet entre ce que j’ai subi et mes troubles (!), ce qui est tellement énorme et risible qu’on aurait plutôt envie d’en pleurer…

J’ai pu constater, à l’instar de la Dre Muriel Salmona, seule psychiatre en France à ma connaissance qui aborde la souffrance psychique sous l’angle du trauma, qu’en France, aucune prise en charge spécifique n’est prévue ou proposée, et après 8 ans de psychiatrie, aucun médecin à ce jour ne m’a diagnostiqué un syndrôme de stress post-traumatique avec dissociation, ce qui pourtant devrait être le cas après des viols dans la grande majorité des cas selon la Dre muriel Salmona ( Association Mémoire Traumatique et Victimologie ). Je n’ai quasiment jamais pu faire de travail thérapeutique avec un psychiatre.

Quant à leur diagnostic de schizophrénie, il n’a jamais été étayé, expliqué ou argumenté, et mon dossier a été établi sur des « observations » des médecins et de simples « impressions » du personnel soignant… J’ai constaté également que parler de spiritualité conduisait immanquablement à un diagnostic de « délire mystique », donc, selon eux, de schizophrénie.

J’en conclus que l’enfermement et leurs mauvais soins n’ont fait qu’en rajouter à mes traumatismes, je ne crois pas un seul instant que leurs maladies imaginaires résultent d’un déséquilibre chimique dans mon cerveau ou d’une quelconque « maladie » biologique, je sais que les effets des neuroleptiques sont catastrophiques à long-terme et je suis totalement en accord avec de nombreux anti-psychiatres à l’international, dont le Dr. Peter Breggin, Joanna Moncrieff, David Healy, Robert Whitaker, Thomas Szazs, Peter Goetzsche et autres… (cf. le site madinamerica.com).

 

CONFORMEMENT À LA CONVENTION DES NATIONS UNIES SUR LES DROITS DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES, ARTICLES 12, 14 ET 15, TEL QU’INTERPRÉTÉ DANS L’OBSERVATION GÉNÉRALE NO. 1 ET LES LIGNES DIRECTRICES SUR L’ARTICLE 14, ET AUX PRINCIPES DE BASE ET LIGNES DIRECTRICES PUBLIEES PAR LE GROUPE DE TRAVAIL SUR LA DETENTION ARBITRAIRE DE L’ONU, PRINCIPE 20 ET LIGNE DIRECTRICE 20, JE PLAIDE POUR L’ABOLITION TOTALE DE LA PSYCHIATRIE COERCITIVE ET DES TRAITEMENTS FORCES.

JE REVENDIQUE TOUS MES DROITS A LA PERSONNE EN TANT QUE FEMME MAJEURE PROTEGEE, PERSONNE HANDICAPEE, EN PARTICULIER LE DROIT INALIENABLE DE DISPOSER PLEINEMENT DE MON CORPS ET DE MON ESPRIT SANS CHIMIE IATROGENE, DE MA LIBERTE INCONDITIONNELLE.

JE CONSIDERE LA PSYCHIATRIE INSTITUTIONNELLE ET SES PRATIQUES COERCITIVES COMME UN CRIME CONTRE L’HUMANITE, UNE ATTEINTE A LA DIGNITE ET A LA LIBERTE DE PENSEE 

Pink Belette, Mars 2016

 

****

Psychiatry in France, NO-RIGHTS-ZONE (By Pink Belette)

A french patient under forced commitment makes her « audit assignment » as part of the campaign to support CRPD absolute prohibition of commitment and forced treatment

 

Why I am against commitment and forced treatment :

One could believe that, in the land of liberty, one is still entitled to his or her physical and moral integrity.

Experience proves it wrong. It is impossible for anyone to escape forced commitment (so-called « care on demand of a third party » or « imminent danger »).

It’s already a done deal if : one person asks for it (family, neighbour…), one is « not well », unsettled, agitated, « not stable », gets angry, is depressed, on the defensive, « in opposition », exuberant, emaciated, bulimic, shit smoker, drugged…

It is sufficient if one refuses hospitalization or a treatment for the doctors to relieve each other in order to enforce commitment. Once hospitalized, it is been made perfectly clear that one looses his or her personal rights, only argument is : « now we are responsible of you for EVERYTHING »… Thus, towards the « patient », nobody is responsible of anything…

 

Since the « Bachelot law » of July 5th 2011, particularly if one has something to object, be it diagnose or treatment, it is then after being out of hospital that one cannot get rid of commitment, which is most perverse : forced injections, mandatory appointments with an non-chosen clinical psychiatrist (or, best case, with a choice between two doctors).

And, worst of all : if one refuses to go to the assigned medical center of one’s district, the police comes to pick one up at home and rehospitalization is mandatory with an increased commitment that is even more coercive (« on demand of the State »), on a longer lapse of time and with no authorization to communicate with the outside (!) until they succeed to break one’s will and reduce one to nothingness… It so happens that people loose their home and « live » in psychiatry (sometimes for decades, see Dimitri Fargette’s case)…

 

I witness : in France, there is really matter to worry about… 

  1. There is no alternative to institutional psychiatry (lobbying of psychiatrists AND pharmaceutical industry against other forms of therapies) ;
  2. No antipsychiatric litterature nor culture (no « survivors »…)
  3. The « College of Psychiatrists » who suspends : every psychiatrist « not aligned » with this consensual system (according to Dr. O.G, liberal psychiatrist and former head of clinic);
  4. The « College of psychiatrists » suspending : a psychiatrist responsible for the death of a patient… only for two weeks (see the case of young patient Florence Edaine)
  5. The « Guardianship mafia » : every patient who is repeatedly hospitalized is automatically placed under guardianship under a certain degree (without consent, it is being reinforced…)
  6. Single mothers get their children robbed and placed immediately after a diagnosis of mental illness is established, never one scandal about this…
  7. Women in age to bear a child are being strongly recommended a contraception, with a wink that their child would be taken away from them anyway. What they are not being told is that all neuroleptics pass the placenta barrier, that’s why i have heard of so many miscarriages from women under treatment. A quote from a nurse : « pregnant women are given Haldol, which proves it’s little nocivity » (!). Never one study about that nor mediatic scandal.
  8. Closed wards full of depressive people who are not in « immediate danger » and are feeling bad mainly because they are being given for example 4 (!) antidepressants at a time…
  9. An always occupied isolation chamber (so-called « intensive care chamber »!), which participates to the « folklore »…
  10. « Once subscriber, always subscriber » : treatments one can NEVER withdraw from ;
  11. No long-term study on psychotropic medication… (All so-called studies are biased)
  12. No recourse in case of even flagrant psychiatric abuse (internal system of « mediation » obsolete : it’s a very bad idea to write a letter to the director of the institution…)

 

Why I am against this new system of « Judge of Liberties and Detentions » (related to the law of september 27th 2013) :

They are making believe it is a recourse. I was proved wrong, except for instance on a technicality (which almost never happens, because it’s in the psychiatrists’ interest that the procedure goes well and in due form). On the contrary, it’s in the sense of more legal coercion…

  1. The judge is no psychiatrist, he would never ever put into question the judgment of the physicians concerning the core. Thus, he has been briefed about the « fact » that any patient who opposes treatment is « in opposition », which establishes already a proof of « illness denial » (and as a proof of illness itself).
  2. Therein it has been found a very practical way for doctors to be discharged of their responsibilities, as « it’s the judge who decides ». And now, bunches of patients are being spotted filing up before the judges’ office, escorted by a nurse : « we bring you Ms. X »…
  3. Patients get a mandated advocate one week before the audience, but who cannot be contacted in advance. At audience day, it’s 15 minutes to meet and prepare, and, of course, in a « formated » way.
  4. Very alarming is the fact that no liberal advocate is to be found for psychiatric abuse pleas, except maybe in Paris, and mostly for a recourse before the Court of Assize.
  5. The judge pretends he cannot lift the forced commitment because it’s asked for by the hospital director. Yet, all demands for forced commitment have to be validated by the director. Hence everyone gives him- or herself a good conscience there ;
  6. Once the audience done (10 minutes), where one gets destabilized, accused and doubted of, the judge « orders » the maintaining of the person in complete hospitalization and of the measure, which confers force of law on the doctors (hence, total impunity).
  7. Not to mention the fact that if one still had credibility before, it’s no longer the case and irreversible. If one refuses to sign the convocation or to attend the audience, it’s worse, and one is being bullied by staff members and doctors alike, who put one under pressure, humiliates one… One also cannot refuse the audience being held despite of one’s absence.
  8. The judge knows pretty well that it’s a political will to make silent the « opponents » of the system, chemically and coercively. He therefore fully concurs with it.

 

Why I am against forced treatment :

I insist on the fact that hospital psychiatrists are almighty regarding the choice and dosage of treatments, it’s never about an « informed consent ». The « benefit- risk balance » is always on their side, even in case of overdosage, even if the person already takes 17 meds and weighs 400 pounds (which is the case of a friend to whom was administered Zyprexa AND Seroquel after which she had a cerebral attack with impairment). They are also never responsible for side effects and, in case of complaint, derefer to one’s generalist physician…

Thus, it is always them who « decide » on one’s behalf if one is well or not and this, even if they don’t know the person or have seen him or her only five minutes…

Perverse effect of the thing : it’s so unbearable being locked up and silenced chemically, that, after a month, one pretends to feel better, disavow his or her opinions and stops complaining about side effects in order to get out, knowing that otherwise one will be diagnosed behavioural troubles and « illness deny »…

 

I WAS TORTURED : with Zyprexa (overdosis), Amisulpride, Cyamemazine, Risperdal (8 mg for a weight of 100 pounds), Haldol (90 drops a day) and « shooted » with Valium (40mg!)…

The doctors and staff refused to take into account : speaking troubles, heavy trembling, convulsions, dyskinesia, unbearable akathisia, heavy existential fear, wish to be dead and psychical tortures (mental « hell ») which appeared immediately and even worsened as time went by. I fought in vain, pleading that neuroleptics anesthetize consciousness, occasion memory loss, make one docile and influentiable, make depressive and even more anxious, impair one cognitively and destroy the soul.

I was also put into solitary confinement several times with violences from the staff AND security agents, despite the fact I have NEVER been even agressive. I was put under contention, was violently undressed, dehydrated, humiliated, spoliated, mistreated…

Today, even if I get a « less inhumane » treatment – Abilify retard injection – (after a 4th suicide attempt), I remain addicted to Valium, traumatized and always on alert, fearing to miss my « obligations » or to make bad impression, without mentioning total absence of perspectives, motivation or joy in life, without mentioning my affective life that is a misery (spiritual death, isolation, depression, anxiety…).

My artistic career, which finally started with success has been definitively broken during my best years (in my 30′) and today I am totally unable to create despite the fact that before, I had thousands of ideas and was giving a great deal to put them into meaningful use. It is also too late and too complicated for me now to become a mother.

I live in precarity at the charge of the State.

 

Why I was always opposed to their pathologizing « diagnoses » :

I’m a person who endured the worst traumas in early childhood (rape and abuse, mobbing…), while most memories came up again more than 30 years afterwards, which greatly affected my emotional balance. I had unfortunately to experience that, according to psychiatrists (if they even believed me), there would be no cause-to-effect relationship between what I had to bear and my troubles (!), which I find so enormous and stupid that one would rather cry…

I had to notice, alike Dr. Muriel Salmona – only psychiatrist in France knowingly approaching psychical suffering under the perspective of trauma – that in France, no specific caretaking is being proposed nor planned, and after 8 years of psychiatry, not one physician has diagnosed me a post-traumatic stress disorder with dissociation which, according to Dr. Muriel Salmona (« Association Mémoire Traumatique et Victimologie ») is the case after rape and abuse.

I could almost never do a therapeutic work with a psychiatrist.

Regarding their diagnosis of schizophrenia, it has never been illustrated, explained or argumented, and my medical records have been established on mere « observations » from the doctors and sheer « impressions » from the staff…

I also came to the conclusion that to actually speak about spirituality would eventually always end in them diagnosing a « mystical delirium » and, as such, schizophrenia.

My conclusion is that their imprisoning and bad treatments have done none but to aggravate my traumas and personal issues, I don’t believe a second that their imaginary « diseases » result in a chemical imbalance in my brain or an unknown « biological » illness, I know that neuroleptics and affiliated meds are catastrophic in the long-term (causing brain damage) and I totally agree with numerous anti-psychiatrists internationally, such as the Drs. Peter Breggin, Joanna Moncrieff, David Healy, Robert Whitaker, Thomas Szazs, Peter Goetzsche and others… (see on madinamerica.com).

 

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES, ARTICLES 12, 14 AND 15, AS INTERPRETED IN GENERAL COMMENT NO. 1 AND THE GUIDELINES ON ARTICLE 14, AND WITH THE BASIC PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES OF THE UN WORKING GROUP ON ARBITRARY DETENTION PUBLISHED IN 2015, PRINCIPLE 20 AND GUIDELINE 20, I SPEAK IN FAVOUR OF ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION OF COERCIVE PSYCHIATRY AND FORCED TREATMENT.

I RECLAIM ALL MY RIGHTS TO PERSONHOOD AS A DISABLED ADULT WOMAN UNDER PROTECTION, IN PARTICULAR THE INALIENABLE RIGHT TO DISPOSE ENTIRELY OF MY BODY, MIND AND SOUL WITHOUT IATROGENIC CHEMICALS AND MY UNCONDITIONAL LIBERTY.

I CONSIDER INSTITUTIONAL PSYCHIATRY AND ITS COERCIVE PRACTICES A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY, A SEVERE HARM TO DIGNITY AND TO FREEDOM OF THINKING.

 

Pink Belette, March 2016

 

 

Eveline Zenith – Freedom From Religion

Freedom From Religion: Campaign to Support CRPD

http://muddledtranslation.blogspot.no

Freedom of Religion, Freedom from Religion: A Psychotherapy Survivor’s Account of Unravelling the Colossal Irony

By Eveline Zenith

Our freedom to believe and practice as we choose is correlated with the core values of liberty and autonomy. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects our rights by stating that everyone has freedom of conscience and religion; also, religious belief cannot be preferred to non-belief. In the United States, freedom of religion is constitutionally protected in the First Amendment, and is associated with the separation between church and state.

Freudian psychoanalysis is a religious ideology that has absolutely no relevance in my life. I can only say that now I have researched it in depth, and this has been no simple task. Finding information about this clandestine methodology required: hours of detective work; a small fortune of books; under-cover attendance at a psychoanalytic seminar; six months of email correspondence with a psychoanalyst; intensive abuse recovery; jumping through every possible hoop in the system… and it remains today irredeemable. I did all this in order to regain sanity after therapy; my mind became so scrambled I had to abruptly discharge myself from the transaction. I am staggeringly aware of how lucky I am.

I had a nervous breakdown and began constantly re-living the bizarre statements my analyst had said to me. They were all vague and stated in a slow hypnotic tone, by a man who had been presenting as a “blank slate”. I had absolutely no familiarity or understanding of him: his intentions, beliefs, or personality. With sheer terror I would wake at 3am… trembling, eyes watering, remembering his intense staring, cutting words, sadistic glee, and condescending manner. There were other times when I felt bonded with him, that he cared, that he was a spiritual guide. The cognitive dissonance alone was torture enough to drive me insane!

Once I went “no contact” all my illusions disintegrated; I became appallingly aware of the prospect that he had deliberately abused me. He has the power, the education, and the techniques at his disposal to really screw me just for kicks. The research I have done on emotional abuse is a succinct match to the so-called techniques; I was vulnerable and had no idea what I was consenting to. He would simply shift the goalposts whenever I grew wise; he’d divert to blaming my hyper-vigilance and trust issues.

I never imagined I would have to defend my human dignity to an institution that is supposed to protect me, or that they would dismiss my testimony and actually try to silence me. The greatest, deepest betrayal was that it was an endeavour to heal from childhood abuse. That therapist held the keys to my most defenseless wounds and senselessly battered them. There is still no accountability on behalf of the profession: either this is considered permissible, or this practitioner needs to be corrected.

I have learned that Freudian psychoanalysis – perhaps psychotherapy on the whole – holds the absolute belief that the pathological relationship will inevitably re-enact. What this means is that if you were abused before, you will re-experience it in therapy and be re-traumatized. I have not yet found anyone in the field who will explain in plain language how this works; it makes no rational sense. This is an accessibility issue. Not only is it illogical, it is downright heinous without mandatory informed consent. Currently, the authorities assume on good faith that the practitioner will inform the client. If you have any knowledge of the world of predators, abuse, and exploitation, you will know this is a loophole for corruption. Also, if you don’t understand this is the process, you will only experience your therapist as your abuser and hopefully get out of it like I did!

There is no therapeutic value in having your spiritual guide manifest as your worst nightmare unless there is a therapeutic alliance; this can only be forged through informed consent every step of the way. Sex, boxing, and psychotherapy are similar: if one person isn’t participating it’s a crime. Psychoanalysis believes practitioners can subject us to treatment because they feel we need it; they have a plan for us, but they don’t reveal it. There are plenty of ethics seminars where theories are discussed about what’s good or bad for clients, but no actual observance of human rights is mandated. The entire “treatment” goes on in complete privacy, with biased accounts of clients’ “transferences” scratched on notepads for billing purposes. I never consented to any transference; I assumed everything was in the here and now. All of this religious interpretation was done behind my back so there was no way I could refute it, question it, challenge it, or even benefit from it. I have searched far and wide in a vast wilderness of possibilities, finally concluding that my practitioner is delusional, sadistic-aggressive, lacks empathy, and has no substantive reasoning for any of it besides money and control. This conclusion is the reason I am alive and well today.

The imperative reason I advocate for the absolute prohibition of coercive treatments is because this harm is done to the previously harmed, vulnerable, and voiceless members of our society. These are people who have had cruel, devastating, and heinous things done to us; large parts of our bodies and souls have been murdered. Even with all the agency I possess, I can’t get through to anyone on the other side of the door. The lack of education and total absence of conversation about abuse in the mental health profession is criminal negligence, considering that is the number one reason people use these services. Although the Code of Ethics for Psychiatry explicitly states informed consent, I am told by the authorities I consented simply by being there.

In terms of CRPD principles, although many sections address aspects of this problem I focus on sections 14 through 16:

Article 14: Liberty and security of the person 

  1. States Parties shall ensure that persons with disabilities, on an equal basis with others:

(a) Enjoy the right to liberty and security of person;

(b) Are not deprived of their liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily, and that any deprivation of liberty is in conformity with the law, and that the existence of a disability shall in no case justify a deprivation of liberty.

  1. States Parties shall ensure that if persons with disabilities are deprived of their liberty through any process, they are, on an equal basis with others, entitled to guarantees in accordance with international human rights law and shall be treated in compliance with the objectives and principles of this Convention, including by provision of reasonable accommodation.

Article 15: Freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 

  1. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his or her free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.
  2. States Parties shall take all effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent persons with disabilities, on an equal basis with others, from being subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 16: Freedom from exploitation, violence and abuse 

  1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social, educational and other measures to protect persons with disabilities, both within and outside the home, from all forms of exploitation, violence and abuse, including their gender-based aspects.
  2. States Parties shall also take all appropriate measures to prevent all forms of exploitation, violence and abuse by ensuring, inter alia, appropriate forms of gender- and age-sensitive assistance and support for persons with disabilities and their families and caregivers, including through the provision of information and education on how to avoid, recognize and report instances of exploitation, violence and abuse. States Parties shall ensure that protection services are age-, gender- and disability-sensitive.
  3. In order to prevent the occurrence of all forms of exploitation, violence and abuse, States Parties shall ensure that all facilities and programmes designed to serve persons with disabilities are effectively monitored by independent authorities.
  4. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to promote the physical, cognitive and psychological recovery, rehabilitation and social reintegration of persons with disabilities who become victims of any form of exploitation, violence or abuse, including through the provision of protection services. Such recovery and reintegration shall take place in an environment that fosters the health, welfare, self-respect, dignity and autonomy of the person and takes into account gender- and age-specific needs. 
  5. States Parties shall put in place effective legislation and policies, including women- and child-focused legislation and policies, to ensure that instances of exploitation, violence and abuse against persons with disabilities are identified, investigated and, where appropriate, prosecuted. 

Unravel edit

Christian Discher – The forgotten and the “Hell in Ueckermünde”

The forgotten and the “Hell in Ueckermünde” [Die Hölle von Ueckermünde] Has anything changed in German Psychiatry’s since the wall came down?

http://inklusionspolitik.de/en/the-forgotten-and-the-hell-in-ueckermunde-die-holle-von-ueckermunde-has-anything-changed-in-german-psychiatrys-since-the-wall-came-down/

by Christian Discher

In Germany, politicians and social research institutes campaign under the claim that we live in a society, in which all people are to be included: older people and people in need of care; disabled people; women; homo- and transsexual people, as well as transgender people; children; the sick; men; and immigrants. Universities receive millions of euros in funding, so that they can begin and maintain research projects focused issues facing “inclusion“. However, due to the mighty cleave between theory and reality, results in research rarely become established practical behaviors or values. Still, a closer look at the concept of inclusion makes it clear: Germany has a long way to go before it can be considered an inclusive society. In the debate over discrimination and exclusion (Inklusion/Exklusion: Stichweh 1997), the public receives hardly any information about the fate of those who, due to a particular psychological disturbance, are forced to live in psychiatric wards. Mainstream media does occasionally report on particular offences, when an acutely ill person is institutionalized. Nonetheless, the difference between mentally ill criminals and mentally ill people is not highlighted. (legal foundation) Meanwhile, depression and eating disorders are widely recognized. Such is as well the case with schizophrenia only with the difference, that the schizophrenic, after being released from treatment, is rarely able to find a place in our society. The latter are those who make us anxious on the subway with their loud announcements the stalking methods of secret government services or CSI. Others beg and attempt to convert their audience. An honest question: who, when confronted with such people in the bus or on the street, doesn’t feel anxious?(Discher: 2015) That the diagnosis of schizophrenia or psychosis – now known to be rooted in a diseased metabolic system – leads to paranoid thoughts and socially inacceptable behaviors, […] Clarification is not provided by mainstream media. Yet, in the case of many diagnosed schizophrenics, this diagnosis is ungrounded. As C. was seventeen years old, he was treated in the intensive care unit at the psychiatric and psychotherapeutic clinic in Ueckermünde. Stettiner Haff (August 2014) Bild 1 In 1993, when the ARD compromisingly distributed the report, Die Hölle von Ueckermünde Hell in Ueckermünde [by Ernst Klee]  the media reacted aggressively. (Moussavian) The inhumane involuntary commitment in the psychiatric wards that took place in this period of the GDR called for worldwide shock and chagrin. What was more horrifying? The argumentation of interviewed personnel or the forcible commitment of human beings? Or was it the terrified men, who had not seen light for years and were showcased to the public without prior consent? Investigative journalism at whose cost? In 2014, on the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall, people celebrated their newly won freedom. But what had become of those, who experienced Ueckermünde, and how is it with those, who are being treated their today? Ueckermünde, a small city at Stettiner Haff touts its “inclusivity” projects. On the website of a regional politician (Dahlemann: 2013), to following goal is heralded: “The beginning of an inclusive region [at the Stettiner Haff” “Many were already there in Bürgersaal. Whether Kulturspeicher or Kleeblattchule Anklam, politicians like Patrik Dahlemann, or regular people – they were all there in order to drive the project forward. Hopefully, it will then become concrete, so that many ideas like that of market for leisure activities, carpooling center, consulting center, among others, will be able to be better implemented and ‘inclusion on the backwater‘ will be brought to life.” The mission is expressed honestly, in words that include everyone. Nevertheless, the number people who retire early in Germany on account of psychological illness is increasing dramatically. In opposition to other German states, the number of mental illnesses in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern increased 102% between 1997 and 2011. The number of in-patients being treated grows at a steady rate. In plans for the further development of an integrative aid services for psychologically ill persons in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, attempts are made to react to structural problems. There are even discussions about interdisciplinary collaborations. During this negative development, the role and responsibilities of those who are active in systematic psychiatric clinics is not questioned. But how do those people fare, who are placed in House 12, a clinic on the edge of Ueckermünde? On a sign at the Ravenstein St. exit, the way to the center for forensic psychiatry as well as to Kita Morgenstern is described.

Wegweiser zur Klinik für Forensische Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie

Further information leads the visitor to the AMEOS hospital complex. The clinic for psychiatry, psychotherapy, and psychosomatic treatment, which is located at 23 Ravensteinstraße, is not mentioned. Before the interested person can find a proper description of the way to the clinic, he or she must first conduct fairly extensive internet research. On its modern web page, the hospital appeals to its 130 year old tradition and gives a detailed presentation of its guiding principles. With 87 in-patient beds, 6 wards, an ambulance, as well as five different treatment options in the day-clinic, the hospital offers enough space for a large number of patients. Modern methods of diagnosis and responsible doctors rounds out the presentation. Since the end of the Second World War, the institution had been reformed. (Cf. Seiffert: 2010).

“Normal psychologically ill” patients as well as the mentally retarded were brought into either red brick buildings or an old socialist construction. Signs that are for orientation say “open and closed integration“ guide you to the buildings. What do the terms integration and inclusion have in common? Across from House 40 is a landing. It is a concrete construction from the socialist era –desperately in need of cleaning – that, in 1997 and for some years thereafter, was still being used in 1997 as an open ward. Today, it is used as dormitory space for disabled people; children play soccer, unconcerned and joyful. The kindergarten Morgenstern is walled in, surrounded by dilapidated shanties that are used as storage spaces. Barbed wire walls tower behind the kindergarten. A sports field, monitored by countless video cameras. Not too far away, at 15 Ravensteinstraße, is the hospital for forensic psychiatry and psychotherapy. With its impressive architecture and reedy ponds, it could easily be mistaken for a vacation spot, if one overlooks the security cameras. Is the latter really a proper place for the rest and recovery of children, patients, and disabled persons, a proper place for the new form of “inclusion” in Ueckermünde? Are the patients and residents given a modern place for sports activities? No. In 1997, at the age of 17 years, C. was checked into House 12, the ward for acute psychiatric illnesses in Ueckermünde. He was just about to complete his Abitur , a high-school examination in Germany, as he suddenly faced a personal identity crisis. Homosexuality, a young love affair, and exclusion in his social environment; problems with his parents. Inner changes and experiences, common among adolescents. In order to help himself come through these developments, he turned to god, began to pray regularly and trust his inner voice. Through conversations with helpful friends, C. searched for a way out of this life-crisis. It was to no avail. His way was impeded by too many of the difficulties and realities of growing-up. He then sought support from a female pastor. He sat across from her, crying, and listened to the advice he would eventually follow: he should check himself into the clinic in his home city. That time, he wasn’t offered alternatives. That he had lost a massive amount of weight in the weeks before he checked in to the clinic played no part in any of the conversations. As he came to the hospital, C. had no idea that he was in the psychiatry ward. It was a bad time. He wanted to display himself honestly, to stand by his homosexuality. He undressed and waited in the corridor of the ward. He realized quickly, however, that this was no way to solve his problem. He calmed himself down but still could not understand that the doors of the ward were locked. He was not used to being shut in, and he felt completely closed in. No one questioned him about his problems; no one noticed the life crisis. At the entrance to the lavatory, he suffered a hemorrhage, that would eventually lead to his downfall. The cleaning of the lavatory and his body cost time. As he made his way back to his room, nurses and doctors were waiting in the corridor. Insecure in front of the crowd, he pushed one to the side, excusing himself with the words, “You made me anxious.” No one knew about his problems and painful stomach illness. His behavior led to his institutionalization at the acute psychiatric ward in Ueckermünde. Discher (2015).

Extract of an Interview with C. “As soon as I got there, someone gave me medication, and I was fixed in 24 hours. The assistant to the doctor assured me, “Don´t worry, you won´t remember the time here”. “I wasn’t addressed to as “Mr.”, but as “Ms.” … After my first day in the acute ward I couldn’t speak anymore. Walking and moving around were as good as impossible. I would need two years until I could say a normal sentence again, and I would need more than five before I could return to my life. But that had nothing to do with the diagnosis I received: I had to recover from the treatment itself. I don’t think I need to tell you that this didn’t get any better after my release from Ueckermünde. I got to know a bunch of people. Many of them are dead; they killed themselves. I wanted to do it, too, yet somehow I knew, that I would make it. “Today I’m married. Despite all of the written attestations of my “below average intelligence”, “boundless hubris – particularly concerning life plans”, and my “immaturity and naïveté”, I  passed my Abitur and later I finished my studies at university. Now I have a job with responsibility and I have both feed on the ground. Out of all of my relations, only my closest friends know about my experience at Ueckermünde … and how I can’t help but remember my stay, every day, every word of it. Everything.” “I have yet to meet someone, who, after their stay in House 12, managed to get their life back together. Either they’ve got a pension, or they aren’t around anymore.”

How should the “normal person” understand the abnormal if no clear distinction is made between forensic psychiatry and the common clinic for psychiatry, psychotherapy, and psychosomatic? Who would have believed C. after his stay in House 12? Who would have even checked if the measures, which stripped him of his freedom, were justified?Judges aren’t doctors. When making decisions, they rely on the testament of medical experts. What goes on behind closed doors is typically controlled by the state and not subject to criticism. General standards make sure that there is consistency and verifiability. Tied up, untied, time to get up.

The lost identities and life goals are lost to the place, that was meant to heal them. I have spoken with countless individuals. Only after long and detailed searches in the internet can one become acquainted with the terrifying life histories which are inseparable from modern forms of psychiatric treatment. Bernd Seiffert from NRW. Thomas Juritz, Olaf L., Mario Hagemeister from Rostock. They are no longer among us. Ueckermünde and the fates of people with psychiatric illnesses are harldy mentioned in publically broadcast legal. After the therapeutically accompanying in Ueckermünde, one is thrown back into life, into the self-help and support groups, into assistant living, or—under the cloak of “inclusion”—into a sheltered workshop? Although people hear about the events in these hospitals, they never really learn about them. Only when they are affected can they afford a look into the inside workings of the red brick buildings. There is no way back. They have been permanently away from life.

These types of clinics create illnesses, psychosis, a metabolic illness of the brain, is not single-handedly responsible for the inability of patients to reenter their lives. If family members with psychosis feel themselves overwhelmed and rely on the advice of professionals, the story of C. will become commonplace. Today, everyone feels a personal connection to talk about depression. Depression has arrived in our society. Do people outside really know what it means to be taken over by deep sadness, avolition, or an urge to suicide? Or is “depressive” merely used as a popular word, because our society is too unreflective?  In this context, clinics are not discussed as much. Nowadays, who would be excited to go to a psychiatrist and get a prescription? These types of forcibly commitment and methods of treatment for younger and older people in Ueckermünde relegate the psychiatry’s to the shadows, that pay effort for a reorientation in medical and health care. Professions with leap of faith: the entire staff, composed of doctors, psychologists, social workers and consultants, that is, those whose level of trustworthiness is much greater than that of the psychologically ill. There is no chance of a collapse. Not only is that red brick building part of the complete system of our society, but the people that work there and go about their business as servants of the everyday, keep it alive. Outer facades and inner building structures are easily renovated. People and their way of thinking are not. Perhaps it is time for the 130 year old tradition of the psychological clinic to reveal its inner workings to the eye of the public.

We are searching for the way toward “inclusion”, that is, toward a society that is open and inclusive for everyone. Meanwhile, this word— “inclusion”—is a lovingly used in-word that sparks the interest of the public and propels politicians in their campaigns, but ultimately forgets the people who are left because no one is lobbying for them. “Inclusion” is a perfectly valid term in scholarship. It is wonderfully suited for raising millions of euros for research projects, the results of which are often not applicable in practice. Those who teach the concept of “inclusion” rarely think it out to its end or represent it practically. Those who actually campaign for “inclusion”, as they happily fulfill their contracts and are kept satisfied by their acting and remain in silence. (Discher 2015)

Bibliography

Thanks B. for your  support.

Adresse Kita Morgenstern: Christophorus Tagesstätte Kita Morgenstern, in: http://www.kita-portal mv.de/de/tageseinrichtungen/kitas_in_m_v/kitas_in_m_v_kita_profil&kitaid=66 (27.01.15).

AMEOS Klinikum: Klinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie Ueckermünde: Ravensteinstraße 23, in: http://www.ameos.eu/1638.html (27.01.2015).

AMEOS Klinikum für Forensische Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie Ueckermünde. Ravensteinstraße 15a. Ueckermünde 17373. Deutschland. in: http://www.ameos.eu/forensik-uede.html(27.01.2015). Auszug aus dem Bericht Sicherheit und Gesundheit. Schwerpunkt psychische Erkrankungen, in: http://www.baua.de/de/Informationen-fuer-die-Praxis/Statistiken/Schwerpunkt/Psyche.html (10.01.2015)

Antwort der Bundesregierung auf die Kleine Anfrage der Abgeordneten Dr. Martina Bunge, Dr. Ilja Seifert, Diana Golze, weiterer Abgeordneter und der Fraktion DIE LINKE. – Drucksache 17/10576 – Zwangsbehandlungen in Deutschland, in: http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/107/1710712.pdf

Autor unbekannt: Tod in Rostock, in: http://www.todinrostock.de.(27.01.15).

Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin: Auszug aus dem Bericht Sicherheit und Gesundheit. Schwerpunkt psychische Erkrankungen, in: http://www.baua.de/de/Informationen-fuer-die-Praxis/Statistiken/Schwerpunkt/Psyche.html (10.01.2015)

Dahlemann, Patrick. 2013: Startschuss für eine inklusive Region am Haff: http://patrick-dahlemann.de/nk-startschuss-fur-eine-inklusive-region-am-haff/(10.01.2015). Die Hölle von Ueckermünde, in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odtM4k9H4k4&spfreload=10.

Discher, Christian. 2015: Die Übriggebliebenen (in Vorbereitung).

Klee, Ernst, in: http://www.fischerverlage.de/autor/Ernst_Klee/2830 (27.01.15).

Mecklenburg Vorpommern. Ministerium für Arbeit, Gleichstellung und Soziales Plan zur Weiterentwicklung eines integrativen Hilfesystems für psychisch Kranke Menschen in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, in , http://www.regierung-mv.de/cms2/Regierungsportal_prod/Regierungsportal/de/sm/_Service/Publikationen/index.jsp?publikid=4665

Moussavian, Sima: Die Hölle von Ueckermünde- Inhalt.in: http://www.helpster.de/die-hoelle-von-ueckermuende-inhalt_207544 (27.01.2015).

Netzwerk für Inklusion am Stettiner Haff, in: http://www.inkaha.de/index.php/component/content/category/33-website(10.01.2015).

Neurologen und Psychiater im Netz: Psychosen. Krankheitsbild. Herausgegeben von Berufsverbänden und Fachgesellschaften für Psychiatrie, Kinder- und Jugendpsychiatrie, Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik, Nervenheilkunde und Neurologie aus Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz, in: http://www.neurologen-und-psychiater-im-netz.org/psychiatrie-psychosomatik-psychotherapie/stoerungen-erkrankungen/psychosen/krankheitsbild/(27.01.15).

Seiffert, Bernd. Sein Trauerblog, in: http://psychiatriekritikerberndseiffert.blogspot.de. (27.01.15).

Seiffert, Bernd.2010: Das Verbrechen der Psychiatrie. Eine Zusammenfassung von Bernd Seiffert, in: http://www.meinungsverbrechen.de/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Die-Verbrechen-der-Psychiatrie_02_2010.pdf (27.01.15).

Stichweh, Rudolf.1995). Inklusion/Exklusion, Differenzierung und Weltgesellschaft. Anmerkung des Autors: „Erweiterte Fassung eines Aufsatzes, der zunächst in Soziale Systeme 3, 1997, 123-136, erschienen ist. Der Abschnitt V ist neu hinzugefügt“, in: http://www.fiw.unibonn.de/demokratieforschung/personen/stichweh/pdfs/17_36stichweh_6.pdf (27.01.2015).

Workfare coercion in UK – Anne-Laure Donskoy

Workfare coercion in the UK: an assault on persons with disabilities and their human rights

Anne-Laure Donskoy_Survivor researcher, UK

12067142_10153490835343527_664282852_n

While there is a lot of focus on coercion organised and implemented in psychiatry, less attention is being paid to state engineered welfare measures based on libertarian paternalism1, which have coercive practices at their core. Among them are policies that strongly support behavioural change using positive psychology and cognitive behavioural therapy. Freidli and Stearn (2015)2 call this “psychocompulsion”. These policies and measures are increasingly used to ambush and coerce persons with disabilities and the long term sick into adopting new ways of being and living conditions under the constant threat of sanctions and which have driven many to attempt to their lives. This paper builds on the work of Friedli and Stearn3 as an attempt to highlight current coercive welfare policies, including forcing ‘therapy’ on individuals, as human rights violation of the CRPD.

 

Background: Psychocompulsion as state sponsored human rights violations

Psychocompulsion, the use of psychological strategies to “nudge” individuals to make “life changes” that fit a political ideology or programme, is not entirely new to the UK. Already in the 1970s, some long term job claimants would be sent for a medical examination, on the premise that if people were not physically ill then they should be able to find and take up work, any work. This had all the flavours of Victorian paternalism written all over it. The ‘mentally disordered’ and the ‘mentally handicapped’ experienced a particular brand of paternalism, hidden away from society and from consciousness in specialist homes and services, often suffering physical and mental abuse or used in rehabilitation work with little or no protection.

Today, psychocompulsion in the UK has been promoted by the Behavioural Insights Team (nicknamed the “Nudge Unit”), now in private hands as a social purpose company but still working closely with the Cabinet Office4, thereby guaranteeing prime influence on policy making. It is clear that psychocompulsion is being used to lock individuals, including the long term unemployed, the sick and persons with disabilities, into back-to-work schemes as a conditionality of welfare. In recent months and weeks, voices of dissent have arisen mostly from social movements, denouncing the use of coercion which put people’s lives at risk5.

As Friedli and Stearn’s paper show, this finger wagging attitude has taken on a far more sinister slant.

First, it turns on its head the idea that unemployment is the product of a failing economy by strongly suggesting that it is a state of mind, worse still a ‘mental illness’ that can be corrected by changing the psychology of claimants, thus placing the onus of responsibility for success, for betterment, for choice etc. on the individuals themselves. This totally ignores issues of social (in-)justice.

Second, it widens the scope by netting in the most vulnerable people in society, specifically the long term sick and those with disabilities, including psychosocial disabilities. This strategy narrowly avoids attracting full-on accusations of discrimination by putting these individuals on par with the long term unemployed and by stressing ad nauseam that the policy is about helping people which should be achieved through (any type of paid) employment. Paid employment becomes the embodiment and the “pinnacle of human experience”.6

Third, the underlying premise that ‘work is good for you’ ignores those dissenting voices which argue that without strong provisos (taking into account the complexity of individual circumstances, choice, timeliness, appropriateness as much as the quality of support and work on offer) the argument is both unhelpful and counterproductive7, and can have devastating consequences for those concerned.

Finally, the stance of the policy totally fits within the libertarian paternalism agenda which moves away from collective to total individual (libertarian) responsibility, slowly realising Ayn Rand’s vision for a permanently productive (and permanently disposable/replaceable) workforce serving an elite. In this scheme, all coercive strategies acquire a legitimacy that the psychiatric survivor movement rejects.

 

Being ill or disabled, and on welfare benefits: state coercion and the CRPD

The Welfare Reform Act 2012 introduced a wide range of reforms to the benefits and tax credits system. The stated aim was to reduce the financial burden of the cost of welfare. This is being achieved by introducing ever drastic and punitive policies under the guises of a responsibilisation agenda, underpinned with an intense authoritarian ideology not seen or experienced since Victorian times. The Tory manifesto of the 2015 general elections claimed it aimed to help people with mental health issues back in to work. The reality is very different and people with mental health issues clearly face discriminations which other groups do not.

 

Article 4: The rights and freedoms of persons with disabilities are violated under the social security scrutiny regime:

When people with mental health issues are on welfare benefits, they find themselves the object of intense, intrusive and inappropriate scrutiny by the system, notably through the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) which has consistently failed these claimants as it is totally unsuited to their singular predicaments and experiences. As a result, more and more people are placed on the Work Related Activity Group of the Employment and Support Allowance which comes with strict conditionalities. Also affected are those under the new Universal Credit (UC) system which is being rolled out for all benefits claimants which places yet another layer of scrutiny on individuals, possibly more so those in work.

 

Article 1-5: Discrimination

A judicial review in 2013 found that the WCA process actively discriminates against people with mental health issues. Since then very little has been done to change the process and the status quo remains.

The Centre for Welfare reform, in its recent report A Fair Society?, also shows that persons with disabilities are targeted the most despite the fact that they have the greatest and often most complex needs.

12674235_10153490835108527_56659396_n

 

Article 10: Right to life: “States Parties reaffirm that every human being has the inherent right to life and shall take all necessary measures to ensure its effective enjoyment by persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others”.

A poll of over 1,000 GPs commissioned by Rethink Mental Illness in 2015, found that over 20% have patients who have felt suicidal due to the WCA8.

In a report sent to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), the senior coroner for inner north London, Mary Hassell, said “the trigger” for the suicide was the man being found fit for work by the department”9.

[A Freedom of Information request has] revealed that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has investigated decisions, via peer reviews, about the welfare payments of 60 claimants following their deaths. A peer review, according to the DWP guidance for employees, must be undertaken when suicide is associated with DWP activity to ensure that any DWP action or involvement with the person was appropriate and procedurally correct.10

 

Article 13: Access to justice: 13.1: “States Parties shall ensure effective access to justice for persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others, including through the provision of procedural and age-appropriate accommodations, in order to facilitate their effective role as direct and indirect participants, including as witnesses, in all legal proceedings, including at investigative and other preliminary stages.”

Benefit claimants who wish to appeal a decision need access to justice. This represents an expense they can ill afford (if at all) therefore need access to legal aid. However, the Ministry of Justice has removed welfare benefits matters from the scope of legal aid funding, thereby denying access to justice and discriminating against the most vulnerable and poorest, among whom people with mental health issues:

In order to challenge a decision of a First-tier Tribunal (FtT) the appellant needs to identify an error of law in the FtT’s decision and then request permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (UT). The process of appealing on a point of law to the UT has two stages, but, for the reasons set out below, the legal aid contract only covers the second stage … The absence of any legal aid at Stage One of an appeal to a UT on a point of law represents a major flaw in the current scheme as it is simply unrealistic to expect an appellant to draft an appeal on a point of law without any assistance.11

In the future, social security claimants who find themselves faced with an incorrect Upper Tribunal decision, or who win their case at the Upper Tribunal but find themselves on the receiving end of an appeal by the DWP12, HMRC13 or a local authority, could be facing the courts and the costs risks attached on their own or not at all.14

In practice, benefit claimants who wish to appeal decisions have to resort to charitable organisations to support them through the process. However these are seeing their funding cut, or they are not coping with increasing number of calls for help.15 There has also been some criticism from within the legal system with regard to persons with intellectual disabilities on matters of legal representation regarding privation of liberty; the same issues also apply to persons with psychosocial disabilities:

The Law Society, which represents solicitors throughout England and Wales, intervened [in a particular case]. Its president, Jonathan Smithers, said: “When a vulnerable person doesn’t have friends or family to represent them during a decision to restrict their liberty, it is vital that person is able to participate in the decision-making process . . . If this is not possible then they must have a legal representative to protect their rights as well as their health and general welfare. Those who are least able to defend themselves should not be sacrificed on the altar of austerity.” 16

 

Actively changing the narrative of workfare and welfare benefits

The narrative of welfare is changing drastically. As Friedi says, we are moving from a “what people have to do [to find work] to what they have to be [demonstrating the right attitude to be employable]17. This is exemplified through the new ‘Work and Health Programme’ planned to be rolled out in England and Wales.

This programme has many strands, including:

−   Embedding psychological services within Job Centres

−   Placing ‘job coaches’ within GP surgeries for people with certain conditions (specifically people with mental health issues): the ‘Working Better’ pilot scheme is funded by the Department for Work and Pensions and the coaches will be provided by welfare to work agency, Remploy (a welfare-to-work subsidiary of the Maximus).

12325145_10153490835113527_1349725544_n

 

This programme blurs the boundary between health and welfare, health and work domains, in a way that has not happened before. This is a coordinated move to effectively bring in the benefits system within NHS care: joblessness, being unemployed becomes an illness, specifically a mental illness which needs to and care be cured through psychological therapies.

It will not only extend benefit conditionality into the NHS but also compromise clinical independence and clinical ethics. In practice, people who display the wrong attitude to work, to work placements or who have been unemployed for a long time will be referred to psychologists and given forced Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, and be sent many motivational emails and text messages throughout the week; or they will be prescribed referrals to an in-house ‘job coach’. Failure to comply with these forced prescriptions will trigger an immediate sanction regime. This will inevitably threaten if not destroy that first quality that patients place in their doctor, trust. People may become reluctant to say anything whether it is about their situation or their health for fear of being forced into the schemes.

 

CRPD violations:

Articles 1-5: (equality, choice, autonomy, capacity)

Persons with disabilities are specifically targeted by the new measures

 

Article 25 (Right to health):

Currently both schemes are in the early stages of being rolled out (pilot stage) and the official line claims that they are voluntary. However, as the Tory manifesto stated “We will help you back into work if you have a long-term yet treatable condition”, this is set to become compulsory: “People who might benefit from treatment should get the medical help they need so they can return to work. If they refuse a recommended treatment, we will review whether their benefits should be reduced.”(p. 28). However, being forced to receive “therapy” for a “treatable condition” is not the same thing as being offered support, which would imply that the individual is free to choose to take it up or not. Most observers agree that what is currently taking place on a voluntary basis as part of the pilot projects will become compulsory, which would only follow the UK Government’s own stance of applying any means to get people “back to work”18.

This means that people with mental health problems will no longer be able to freely choose to consent, or withhold their consent, to ‘treatment’. There is also a high risk that people will feel intimidated into consenting to undergo these ‘therapies’. This is very similar to what happens in psychiatry whereby the right to health is invoked to forcibly treat people for their own good, “in their best interest” … but as their only option. To decline a recommended treatment or to fail to comply to the letter with the injunctions and expectations of the system will result in benefits sanctions.

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), the approach chosen by the Government is highly controversial and does not suit everybody. Therefore a one-fits-all approach, whether it is applied forcibly or not, will be counterproductive as it may make some people feel worse (counter to their right to health) and shows the total lack of understanding of the often complex and singular situations of persons with disabilities.

 

Art 10: (Right to life)

Any Government that uses coercion and sanctions as a means to a political end must take full responsibility for the consequences of its actions. As with the Work Capability Assessment, people being coerced into receiving behavioural or any therapy they did not fully consent to, may experience adverse effects (making people even more unwell by making them even poorer and forcing them to live in a constant state of anxiety, making them suicidal).

It also denies the person as an autonomous individual able to make their own choices (Art 12, Equal recognition before the law; Art 16, Freedom from exploitation, violence and abuse and threatens their integrity (Art 17)).

It also contradicts the Government’s own claims that it is doing everything to make UK domestic law compliant with the CRPD:

The Convention is not legally binding in domestic law in the UK but is given effect through the comprehensive range of existing and developing legislation, policies and programmes that are collectively delivering the Government’s vision of equality.19

 

Article 17 (Protecting the integrity of the person): The issue of coercion goes beyond “designating work as a cure for unemployment and poverty”20 as Friedli puts it; this is also about changing people’s societal status and identity. In the new narrative, there are productive and unproductive individuals, therefore there is no such thing as a long-term sick or disabled person (all disabilities included). These notions pretty much disappear in the name of inclusiveness and fairness (in relation to so-called “hard working people”21 who are deserving of help and will do their utmost not to rely on the state for their individual needs).

Language is indeed important in this context, and language is shifting. As many have observed, ‘sick notes’ have become ‘fit notes’, the term ‘disability’ too is being erased as ‘Disability Living Allowance’ becomes ‘Personal Individual Payment’. This speaks to a simplistic but powerful narrative of ‘can-do-no-matter-what’ supported by having a compulsory ‘right attitude, which is where psychocompulsion comes in. Nudging then forcing people into having the ‘right attitude’.

 

Forcing people back to work by reducing their welfare benefits

Persons with disabilities are clearly targeted over and above other categories of individuals (Art 1-5 equality, discrimination, choice, autonomy). Indeed, another form of coercion has emerged through a recent drastic to the ESA in weekly support from £103 to £73, contained in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. It will apply to new ESA claimants in the work-related activity group. This vote, pushed through Parliament on 7 March 201622, is meant to “incentivise disabled people to find work quicker”. This (purely ideological) decision will not only strip them of financial security but also reinforce the idea, by bringing the rate into line with Jobseeker’s Allowance, that disability no longer exists, that anyone can and should work, that there are only productive (deserving) and unproductive (undeserving) people.

 

An unethical social experiment

It has come to light that these new programmes are also the subject of ‘research’. The new Work and Health Programme is currently at a research and trialing stage23. As Kitty Jones writes,

Part of the experimental nudge element of this research entails enlisting GPs to “prescribe” job coaches, and to participate in constructing “a health and work passport to collate employment and health information.24

However, this ‘research’ (if one can call it so), has been heavily criticised because it is not sanctioned according to the usual robust ethical guidelines. Research that adheres to robust ethical guidelines would absolutely seek not to cause harm to its participants, and would seek their informed consent beforehand25. This is not the case here where claimants are the participants are the involuntary and ‘unconsented’ participants of an experiment they know nothing about.

There are a wide range of legal and Human Rights implications connected with experimentation and research trials conducted on social groups and human subjects.26

A spokesperson for Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC), talked of the UN CRPD Committee’s visit to the UK and described the situation thus:

It means the UN will examine the vicious and punitive attacks on disabled people’s independent living as well as the cuts which have seen so many placed in inhuman circumstances and has led to unnecessary deaths.27

 

Articles 1-5: discrimination against persons with disabilities who are targeted through this programme.

Article 9: right to communication: The existence of this experiment and the format of its conduct has not been communicated with the claimants (the participants).

 

Article 10 (Right to Life): when coercion brings people to the brink of suicide or they succeed in killing themselves (one court case at least has pronounced on the clear link between benefits sanctions and reasons for suicide):

Research from the Black Triangle campaign group found more than 80 cases of suicide directly linked to billions of pounds in benefit cuts. John McArdle, co-founder of Black Triangle, said: “The Dept of Work and Pensions refuses to reveal the findings of their own peer reviews of suicides linked to the sanctions so we will never know the truth in those cases. . . He said the Work Capability Assessment regime applied to all sick and disabled people, without adequate risk assessment ‘built into the system’28

Mortality rates bring their own tales of woe:

[The government] published or, rather, was forced to after several Freedom of Information requests – that show more than 80 people a month are dying after being declared “fit for work”. These are complex figures but early analysis points to two notable facts. First that

2,380 people died between December 2011 and February 2014 shortly after being judged “fit for work” and rejected for the sickness and disability benefit, Employment and Support Allowance (ESA). We also now know that 7,200 claimants died after being awarded ESA and being placed in the work-related activity group – by definition, people whom the government had judged were able to “prepare” to get back to work.29

 

Articles 12, 17, 19: Coercive measures embedded in all aspects of the Work and Health Programme and its various tools and strategies run counter to the premise that the person is free and able to make choices for themselves, and considerably threatens their right to independent living when they are forced into poverty.

Nothing seems to shift the current UK Government’s assault on people with disabilities or long term sickness, and on their human rights. Not the many Freedom of Information requests which have revealed that the DWP did look into the death of 60 benefits claimants but sat on the findings; nor a Commons Select Committee inquiry into benefits sanctions in April 2015, nor the visit by the UN CRPD committee at the request of a disability group (DPAC) in the late autumn of 2015, nor a coroner’s report clearly linking a claimant’s suicide to the stress caused by the Work Capability Assessment. The UK is effectively engineering and encouraging coercive and punitive policies that specifically target people with disabilities and the long term sick, putting their lives and their future at high risk. Many have observed that ‘austerity’ was only ever an excuse to establish and implement ideological policies. This is not about saving money in hard times; this is about the willful annihilation of the disabled, either through language or deeds.

 

Anne-Laure Donskoy

March 2016

 

Notes:

1https://kittysjones.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/the-goverments-reductive-positivistic-approach-to-social-research- is-a-nudge-back-to-the-nineteenth-century/– The idea that it is both possible and legitimate for governments, public and private institutions to affect and change the behaviours of citizens whilst also [controversially] “respecting freedom of choice.”

2 Friedli L, et al. Med Humanit 2015;41:40–47. doi:10.1136/medhum-2014-010622

3 See also this short film: https://vimeo.com/157125824

4 http://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/

5 http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/coroners-ground-breaking-verdict-suicide-was-triggered-by-fit-for-work-test/

6Cole M. Sociology contra government? The contest for the meaning of unemployment in UK policy debates. Work Employment Soc 2008;22(1):27–43.

7 Even the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) who are driving these policies, acknowledged in a 2006 study have put forth provisos that “account must be taken of the nature and quality of work and its social context” and that, for sick and disabled people, “there is little direct reference or linkage to scientific evidence on the physical or mental health benefits of (early) (return to) work for sick or disabled people.” 8https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/is-work-good-for-your-health-and-well-being

https://www.rethink.org/media-centre/2012/09/new-gp-survey-shows-government-welfare-test-is-pushing- vulnerable-people-to-the-brink

9 See note 3

10 https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/02/05/welf-f05.html

11 https://gclaw.wordpress.com/2014/05/30/what-legal-aid-is-still-available-for-work-undertaken-on-welfare-benefits-post-laspo/

12 Department of Works and Pensions

13 Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

14 http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/legal-aid-reform-or-termination

15 http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/25/benefit-cuts-welfare-linked-mental-health

16 http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/mar/10/judge-challenges-government-over-legal-representation-for-

vulnerable-people?CMP=share_btn_tw

17 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt-V0e0-ipY

18 A side point has been made by Friedli and others about the questionable ethics of those clinical psychologists who accept to take part in such initiatives and about the rapid expansion of the back-to-work industry.

19 Office for Disability Issues, UK Initial Report On the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, May 2011,

www.odi.gov.uk/un-report

20 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt-V0e0-ipY

21 An expression used as a constant leitmotiv by the UK government.

22 Ministers claimed “financial privilege” to assert the Commons’ right to have the final say on budgetary measures

23 http://php.york.ac.uk/inst/spru/research/summs/esa.php

24 https://kittysjones.wordpress.com/2015/12/14/the-department-for-work-and-pensions-dont-know-what-their-ethical-and- safeguarding-guidelines-are-but-still-claim-they-have-some/

25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_research_in_social_science

26 See note 15

27 http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/confirmed-un-is-investigating-uks-grave-violations-of-disabled-peoples-rights/

28http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/more-80-suicide-cases-directly-5634404

29 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/27/death-britains-benefits-system-fit-for-work-safety-net

 

 

“Where Would I Be if I Didn’t Believe in Me?” – Corrine A. Taylor

Where Would I Be If I Didn’t Believe in Me

 

My name is Corrine A. Taylor, I just titled this piece, “Where would I be if I didn’t believe in me?” Every time I sit down to share an aspect of my story I do it from a place of my heart space wanting to share awareness in the world, knowing there was a period of my life where I knew nothing and only accepted what the psychiatrist and social workers told me. I was desperate to live a well life but didn’t know how. I have learned that I am not the only one and there are many more people just not knowing and accepting to be labeled and drugged. However, I have come to a place of awareness to know that this is just my story and everyone else’s story needs to be respected and validated as I choose to tell my own, knowing that each and everyone of us is worthy to live a well life. I am focusing on the aspect of my life of not being forced to take drugs and why I chose this title, “Where would I be if I didn’t believe in me?” for the Campaign to Support CRPD Absolute Prohibition of Commitment and Forced Treatment.

When I got to a place of awareness of what is happening with psychiatry and choosing to accept a mental illness diagnosis and label for so long, accepting drugs, dying slowly waiting for the cure to be better, to live the life I wanted, I decided, no more. I had been on a journey for peace in my mind body spirit since I was a child, but was interrupted by abandonment, physical, sexual and emotional abuse, along with poverty and poor education. When I said no more to the last psychiatrist I was seeing and she offered me more drugs, I had been involved with the recovery community and learned a lot of the history about mental health in our world. So I was informed and I had a choice. I choice to feel what I needed to feel, let go what I needed to let go, forgive others and myself, and to learn, relearn and learn each and every day. That meant I could no longer accept the mind numbing drugs that never allowed me to fully accept and let go the affects of trauma.

When I had that last session with the psychiatrist and she offered me more drugs, different drugs, I had to tell her no each time. I could still remember the look on her face. I could still remember the confidence in my being that I knew what I needed and what I was asking for and what I expected to get as my human rights. I could still remember the last session with the therapist I saw, giving me suggestions that I should still see her or come back to her soon, that I would need to come and dump on her all the things happening in my life instead of dealing with them. Talking to her and dumping them on her that meant, not facing the situations that I was dealing with outside of her office. That meant not connecting and disconnecting, not building relationships, and more than that, not trusting myself.

But I believed in myself that day. I believed in the journey that I have been living. I saw all the hard lessons things that I past through, learn and like sharing with others, the way that I learn from others. I had people who became friends who supported me and believed in me and helped to ease the burden of an oppressive existence of poverty and lacking. Gave me strength within the Bible stories I learned as a child of not giving up and persevering. I choose to share my story at www.theproject321.com it is the lessons I learned taking the time to take care of myself and learning the lessons from all of my experiences, especially the hard ones.

I am glad I believed in me. Working behind the scenes at a mental health clinic really helped, as I saw the psychiatrist and social workers have all there faults, insecurities, judgments, behavior issues, or really just being as human as I am. It made me strong to believe in myself. When they came at me with negative reports, I was able to stand up for myself. I saw them with all their human flaws, but deserving dignity and respect and I knew that I deserve the same and so does everyone else. If that last psychiatrist with the look on her face that she new what was best for me, had decided to call the cops and lock me up, forced the drugs on me that she was offering me, where would I be today. I have been working to live for the last five years, connecting with my children and supporting them emotionally. Made friends and allies in the community, and living my life included in society, not on the couch drugged, overdosed, dying slowly accepting a diagnosis, and label. I ask again, “Where would I be if I didn’t believe in me?” I know where I ended up when I didn’t believe in me, accepting one mental illness diagnosis one after the other, one drug after the other, and not living up to my full potential as a human being. That is all that I want. Feel I deserve and so does each and everyone of us.

M’hamed El Yagoubi, Campagne pour soutenir l’Abolition totale des soins et de l’hospitalisation sans consentement en application de la CDPH de l’ONU

http://cvjn.over-blog.com/2016/03/campagne-pour-soutenir-l-abolition-totale-des-soins-et-de-l-hospitalisation-sans-consentement-en-application-de-la-cdph-de-l-onu.htm

http://depsychiatriser.blogspot.no/2016/03/contribution-de-mhamed-el-yagoubi-la.html

aussi en traduction italien, http://www.ilcappellaiomatto.org/2016/03/campagne-pour-soutenir-labolition.html

13 Mars 2016

Photo de Nathalie prise le mois d'août 2012 Pont de l'Arc, Aix-en-Provence

Photo de Nathalie prise le mois d’août 2012 Pont de l’Arc, Aix-en-Provence

http://depsychiatriser.blogspot.fr/2016/03/contribution-de-mhamed-el-yagoubi-la.html

http://depsychiatriser.blogspot.fr/2016/03/contribution-de-mhamed-el-yagoubi-la.html

Campagne pour soutenir l’Abolition totale des soins et de l’hospitalisation sans consentement en application de la CDPH de l’ONU

Nathalie Dale. Née le 21 mai 1970 à Cagnes-sur-Mer. France.

Morte le 31 janvier 2014 à Aix-en-Provence. France.

Cause : Défaillance respiratoire au surcharge médicamenteux selon le certificat établi par le service de médecine légale le 03/02/2014.

1 – Détruite par un traitement psychiatrique non seulement inefficace mais dangereux et mortel dans son dosage à longue durée.

2– Traumatisée par l’enlèvement brutal de son enfant par le juge avec la complicité de la psychiatre de l’hôpital de Montperrin (Aix-en-Provence) et ses collaborateurs juste après l’accouchement le 30 mars 2010 à 10h00. Elle ne l’a jamais vu. Elle l’a reconnu dans sa déclaration administrative et lui a donné un nom.

– Dépossédée de ses allocations par les mandataires déléguées du « service juridique de la protection des majeurs».

4 – Hospitalisation sous contrainte à l’aide d’un arrêté préfectoral du 19 octobre 2010, non basé sur une enquête préalable mais sur une pétition d’une partie du voisinage aux comportements malveillants abusant de sa vulnérabilité. Elle aurait été sauvée si les services concernés avaient été animés d’un peu d’humanité et avaient pris en compte les nombreux rapports d’alerte que je leur avais adressés en tant qu’ex-mari et compagnon. Peut-être eux-mêmes sont-ils victimes d’un système incontrôlable et monstrueux. Un rapport écrit a été communiqué à la préfecture (Agence régionale de Santé) le 14 mars 2011 sur cet arrêté abusif violant totalement ses droits et sa dignité.

Le cas de Nathalie pointe les aspects les plus obscurs dans le non-respect des droits de l’homme et du patient en situation de handicap psychique : La maltraitance psychiatrique et l’abus tutélaire et curatelle.

Nathalie fut mise sous curatelle renforcée le 08 avril 2010 alors qu’elle était hospitalisée à l’hôpital de Montperrin. Elle n’avait pas été consultée pour avoir son avis. Un abus de sa faiblesse et les effets de sa grossesse ont été sans aucun doute une atteinte plausible à ses droits.

Elle fut éjectée de l’hôpital psychiatrique de Montperrin le 26 avril 2010 sans aucun centime, sans accompagnement social et sans suivi médical pendant de longs mois. Elle faillit mourir d’inanition dans un pays d’abondance, alors que l’hôpital et d’autres services prélevaient directement ses maigres allocations (AAH). Grâce à ma vigilance et mon soutien matériel et moral, elle a échappé à une catastrophe, mais pas pour longtemps.

Nathalie subit un internement psychiatrique du 19 octobre 2010 au 19 janvier 2011 suite à un arrêté préfectoral. Nathalie fut mise sous contrainte des « soins » obligatoires sous le contrôle de la même psychiatre au CMP (Centre médico-psychologique). Aucune écoute dans la dignité et le respect de ses droits mais des séances « expédiées » avec des menaces de retournement à l’hôpital psychiatrique et la prescription de « médicaments » aux effets dévastateurs et mortels : Lexomil, Imovane, Lepticur, Sulfarlem, Clopixol, etc. Elle passait les trois quarts de la journée dans son lit. Immobilisée, l’incapacité de se lever ou de faire quelques pas. Les traitements prescrits pendant les RDV qui ne duraient que quelques minutes n’ont pas été modifiés. Je dis quelques minutes parce que je l’ai accompagné plusieurs fois à ce centre (CMP) obsolèteLexomil, Imovane, injection (coplixol), lepticur, sulfarlem, etc. Aucune visite chez elle ni par les infirmières ni par cette la psychiatre. Tous les RDV se faisaient le matin à 09h00 dans ce centre. Nathalie ne manifestait aucun trouble et aucune inquiétude au début de la journée. Elle est matinale. Son fonctionnement global est normal. A partir de midi, les effets dévastateurs des traitements imposés commençaient à être visibles. Ils provoquaient un ralentissement de ses perceptions et de ses réactions. Sa langue se diluait, ses yeux se fixaient en haut, confusion et perte dans l’espace et le temps, la bouche ouverte avec sa langue qui descendait, toujours sèche, difficulté d’avaler, des mouvements et des réflexes de ses deux épaules perceptibles, tête baissée sur la table quand elle est sur son canapé, un ralentissement du fonctionnement de son corps, perte de sensations et de perception . Quand elle marche et quand elle parle, aucune coordination, elle tombait, elle éprouvait des difficultés cinétiques pour aller aux toilettes faire pipi. Parfois, elle le faisait dans son lit non par imprudence mais par l’incapacité de se mouvoir. Elle ne sentait plus ses jambes. Quand elle faisait un effort pour quitter son lit, elle tombait par terre sans pouvoir avoir la capacité de se redresser. Elle restait allongée avec sa langue qui sortait. Quand elle prenait son bain, ce qu’elle aimait faire tous les jours chez elle, elle aimait rester au contact de l’eau fraîche, pas trop, elle restait longtemps endormie. Elle ne prenait pas son traitement au-delà de ce qui est prescrit.

L’intervention des services de la préfecture en collaboration du personnel de la psychiatrie le 19 octobre 2010 entre 20h et 00h ont laissé des traces profondes dans le reste de sa vie. Terrorisée et mise dans un état psychologique dégradé de façon irréversible, alors que ces services savaient très bien qu’elle était fragile, dépossédée par leur pouvoir inhumain, poussée par leurs mécanismes destructeurs à l’irréparable et à l’impensable juste pour satisfaire une pétition d’un groupe de voisins violents et animés par un esprit communautariste défaillant.Elle ne pouvait pas sortir, quand ils étaient devant l’immeuble où elle habitait par peur. Quand je l’accompagnais tous les jours, dès qu’elle voyait un véhicule des services de la police ou de la gendarmerie, elle paniquait parce qu’elle a intériorisé le contenu de cet arrêté préfectoral qui fait froid dans le dos. Les pires dictatures n’auraient pas pu le faire. Et pourtant, cette décision mortifère est prise par la préfecture des Bouches-du-Rhône, haute représentation de l’ Etat de «droit». La France.

Ces éléments de connaissance sur les effets dévastateurs des traitements qu’elle prenaient ont été codifiés et mis en manuscrit pendant un longue période surtout depuis juin 2011 jusqu’à la fin de vie 31 janvier 2014. Il aurait été plus parlant si la victime était là pour témoigner. J’ai pris le risque de mettre en ligne ces quelques éléments dans une méthodologie crue pour ne pas trahir son vécu infernal que j’ai bien assumé son partage.

Ces pratiques « médico-psychiatriques », aggravées par l’enlèvement de son enfant et l’internement abusif et la privation de ses allocations par le service de curatelle ont été administrées jusqu’à l’étouffement fatal le 31 janvier 2014. Et pourtant, le dernier rapport communiqué aux services concernés sur la gravité de son état de santé et d’atteinte à ses droits a été fait le 07 octobre 2013. Un autre rapport a été communiqué le 28 décembre 2013 au Député chargé de la mission d’information parlementaire sur les dérives de la psychiatrie en France, M. Denys Robilard. Malheureusement, aucune suite.

Nathalie est victime des traitements « médicamenteux psychiatriques » abusifs suite à un internement illégitime et aggravé et une mise sous curatelle défectueuse et prédatrice.

Pour une provocation de plus, des acteurs institutionnels de la psychiatrie organisent à Marseille, Aix-en-Provence et Salon du 14 au 27 mars 2016, ce qu’ils appellent «Semaines sur la santé mentale». Il est plutôt réel de dire «Semaines sur l’institutionnalisation de la maltraitance psychiatrique mortifère».

Collectif Vérité et Justice pour Nathalie

www.cvjn.over-blog.com

M’hamed EL Yagoubi

compagnon de Nathalie

Fait à Marseille, le 13 mars 2016