Mental health patients being denied human rights in court

(211 Posts)
HollyHB Sat 04-Jan-14 02:15:09

From www.independent.co.uk/
Emily Dugan, Social Affairs Correspondent, published Friday 03 January 2014

Brief, fair use excerpt:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
People with mental health problems are being denied justice by some Court of Protection judges who fail to even consider hearing patients’ testimony, leading lawyers have told a House of Lords inquiry.
...
Charlotte Haworth Hird, a solicitor who contributed to the submission, said that depriving patients of the right to speak for themselves “can lead to injustice”. She added: “Just because someone is deemed not to have capacity doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have the chance to speak to the judge about an important decision affecting their lives.
...
The decisions of the court came under scrutiny earlier ... when it emerged Italian mother Alessandra Pacchieri had a caesarean section performed against her wishes and that her daughter was later taken into "care". ...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It's good that they acknowledge that when people are denied opportunity to speak in their own defense when accused of being mental in an English Star Chamber secret court, it is not just the victim but her child or children who are denied justice also.

NoseWiperExtraordinaire Sat 04-Jan-14 14:41:47

Link to article

There is also “no specific training” for those charged with deciding if someone is capable of making their own life decisions, according to the submission. Training is an issue amongst judges too, particularly in the district courts. “There are some courts in which district judges have had no training in the Mental Capacity Act”, they said, adding: “This should not be acceptable.”

If true, that is unbelievable.

Spero Sat 04-Jan-14 18:30:07

What do you mean by 'accused of being mental' ?

LakeDistrictBabe Sat 04-Jan-14 18:33:00

-

Ahem, someone with a mental illness is not 'mental' as you defined her/him.

Please can we stop spreading these lies about mental health patients?
I can tell you're not making any favour to them, firsthand knowledge, unfortunately.

-

LittleDoris Sat 04-Jan-14 18:38:14

You should have said "mentally ill" OP. Now the whole point of the thread will be ignored while everyone tells you what a horrible person you are.

Spero Sat 04-Jan-14 18:41:34

Nope, genuine question. Had a client who had suffered catastrophic brain injury in RTA. She fluctuated from day to day, sometimes rational(ish) others, utterly delusional.

Does she come under category of 'mental'? Do you think she was able to make her own decisions?

LakeDistrictBabe Sat 04-Jan-14 18:46:37

NoseWiperExtraordinaire

If true, that is unbelievable.

No, it's not. As it is quite believable that police officers and investigators assigned to rape cases have no absolute knowledge about sexual assualt and abuse and treat rape victims like terrorists.
Firsthand knowledge about it too.

LittleDoris

Now the whole point of the thread will be ignored while everyone tells you what a horrible person you are.

Probably. I wish I could see more mental health patients to comment online on these threads because nobody can act like being in their shoes. However, I know very well that if someone jumps up saying "I'm a schizophrenic and I believe that...", the others wouldn't even care to listen to him/her.
Yes, many people think that mental health patients are mental. Totally untrue.

HollyHB Sat 04-Jan-14 18:57:15

"Mental" is a common (perhaps Northern) colloquialism for a person whose capacity to make sound decisions is severely impaired by a psychological disorder. It is much shorter to write "mental" than to write "with severely impaired capacity to make sound decisions due to a mental disorder" and almost everyone (though apparently not everyone) is familiar with commonplace English colloquialisms.

In this case, Alessandra Pacchieri was accused in the sense that it was suggested that she should forfeit the right to make decide her own medicine on account of her allegedly being mental. I think it is safe to assume she would have refuted such accusation if she had been aware of it at the time.

The human rights problem was that she never had any opportunity to testify in her own defense nor to confront her accusers. Moreover her trial was conducted in secret and in absentia. All of which is incompatible with both the UDHR and the ECHR. It appears she was represented, more exactly mis-represented, by a lawyer who never even met with her to discuss her jeopardy.

LakeDistrictBabe Sat 04-Jan-14 19:01:55

The human rights problem was that she never had any opportunity to testify in her own defense nor to confront her accusers.

Judge Munby asserted differently. Question is: do we want to keep to buy the crap printed by the papers or do we plug our brains and start doing some proper research on our own?
I chose the second option, sorry.

"Mental" is a common (perhaps Northern) colloquialism for a person whose capacity to make sound decisions is severely impaired by a psychological disorder.

In American 'mental' means stupid. Please take into account that not all members could be British.

And given that I heard the assertion mentally ill equals stupid very often, I'd like to point out that is not true.

Tiredemma Sat 04-Jan-14 19:07:59

Mental" is a common (perhaps Northern) colloquialism for a person whose capacity to make sound decisions is severely impaired by a psychological disorder. It is much shorter to write "mental" than to write "with severely impaired capacity to make sound decisions due to a mental disorder" and almost everyone (though apparently not everyone) is familiar with commonplace English colloquialisms

erm. No it isnt. I work in the mental health service- specifically in criminal justice. We do not describe someone as literally 'mental'. We would state that they appear to be suffering with mental illness or disorder- not just state 'mental'. I would get some frowns from my colleagues if I assessed someone in prison or police station and came back saying 'they are mental'

I may be missing the point here (very sleep deprived).

Spero Sat 04-Jan-14 19:10:01

But Alessandra Pacchieri was really very ill. She was so ill she was sectioned. She was suffering the consequences of once again failing to take the medication to control her very serious mental illness. She was delusional.

I am sorry, I really don't understand what is going on here.

Do you really think seriously mentally ill people should just be dropped off at court and told to make their case?

I agree that whereever possible people ought to be able to address directly a judge who is making a decision about them or their children, but do you accept that some people are just too ill at times to be able to make any use of this opportunity?

Isn't it good that we live in a country that tries to protect the vulnerable, and not just assume the mentally ill can manage court proceedings without help?

IamtheZombie Sat 04-Jan-14 19:13:40

In Zombie's experience and opinion 'mental' is almost exclusively used as a derogotory term. She finds it offensive.

AnyFuckerForAMincePie Sat 04-Jan-14 19:14:55

As a Northern lass myself, I find your assertions that "mental" is a normal term of reference in this neck of the woods to be erroneous.

As one of those "mental" people, I am actually very pleased to know that if I were very ill and delusional, someone who was going to act in my best interests would be required to speak for me. In what world would I want to defend myself when my defence would be gibberish? I feel very strongly that speaking for myself in such a circumstance would do more harm than good, and your concern over it is quite perplexing.

LittleDoris Sat 04-Jan-14 19:20:28

I agree that whereever possible people ought to be able to address directly a judge who is making a decision about them or their children, but do you accept that some people are just too ill at times to be able to make any use of this opportunity?

The problem for me is, do I trust the person that deemed the person too ill? And I'm afraid, I don't. Why should a judge? Why shouldn't s/he be making the decision her/himself?

Personally, secret CP hearings and Sections terrify me. Absolutely terrify. A group of people assess a person, and they are then incapable of explaining their life as they see it? Even if they are delusional, or too ill, they should still have the opportunity.

LittleDoris Sat 04-Jan-14 19:24:27

And in the case of the italian woman, the only interests that were being considered were those of the child. As in all CP cases.

Was anyone truly acting in the mothers best interests? Her representation hadn't even met her.

Spero Sat 04-Jan-14 19:27:09

Alessandra Pacchieri was represented by the Official Solicitor who instructed a family QC to represent her in court. All this on tax payers money.

Rather than being ashamed of our system I am actually quite proud of it.

I am sorry it makes you so frightened. If it helps, decisions about capacity are not made lightly. It is obviously a very serious matter and is kept under constant review. That is what the Court of Protection is for - to safeguard the vulnerable.

Spero Sat 04-Jan-14 19:28:34

If someone is psychotic, what benefit is there going to be for that person in meeting their lawyer? How are these two people going to communicate and meaningfully engage? What if the person suffering psychosis found it confusing and/or frightening? What would be the point? Who would that help?

HollyHB Sat 04-Jan-14 19:29:16

Spero wrote: But Alessandra Pacchieri was really very ill. She was so ill she was sectioned. She was suffering the consequences of once again failing to take the medication to control her very serious mental illness. She was delusional.

I submit that it was never intended that human rights be limited to only people who are healthy. And I am glad that this is being pointed out to the House of Lords enquiry.

When considering that she was deprived of basic human rights by the Star Chamber (another colloquialism) it is moot as to whether she could have usefully availed herself of an opportunity to speak in her own defense. And it is also moot as to whether her plea (if she had been allowed to make it) would or would not have been persuasive.

Perhaps the people you smear are indeed capable of "telling their case". What matters is that they have the opportunity of refuting allegations and confronting accusers in person.

Spero Sat 04-Jan-14 19:32:59

But Holly what do you suggest we do? Simply take every mentally ill person to court? What about the people who are just too ill?

Don't we as a society owe it to the vulnerable to try to protect them?

Of course we need to be alert to when protection slides into unhelpful paternalism.

But your arguments only hold water if we accept they are based on the premise that the state agencies who try to protect the vulnerable are essentially corrupt.

I reject that premise and have never been shown any evidence to convince me otherwise.

LittleDoris Sat 04-Jan-14 19:37:16

Its easy to underestimate the need to be heard when one is involved in something like this.

I had SS involvement a few years ago, and the lack of being listened to was panic inducing. There were conclusions drawn and facts twisted about my life by people who had spent 5 minutes in a room with me on a Monday after they had eaten their lunch and called their boyfriend. I wasn't a person, just the next task in their day.

We are more complicated than anything anyone can write down in a report, and I will always believe that if a person wants to have their say, they should be given the opportunity, no matter how incapable they are deemed to be.

LakeDistrictBabe Sat 04-Jan-14 19:39:44

LittleDoris

^Was anyone truly acting in the mothers best interests? Her representation hadn't even met her.*

She was lucky. If she had what she had in Italy, she's probably be confined in a psychiatric ward of a prison.

LakeDistrictBabe Sat 04-Jan-14 19:41:54

LittleDoris

Its easy to underestimate the need to be heard when one is involved in something like this

Yes, again that is the same for abuse and rape victims though.

Are abuse and rape victims children of a lesser God or don't they fit correctly into any political agenda nowadays?

Lioninthesun Sat 04-Jan-14 19:43:10

BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability Sat 04-Jan-14 19:19:56
As one of those "mental" people, I am actually very pleased to know that if I were very ill and delusional, someone who was going to act in my best interests would be required to speak for me. In what world would I want to defend myself when my defence would be gibberish? I feel very strongly that speaking for myself in such a circumstance would do more harm than good, and your concern over it is quite perplexing.

This ^
My best friend from school suffers with mental illness and I know that she would also not like to be given options when in a very confused state. It is certainly not in anyone's best interests to treat someone going through a mental episode as if they were not.

LakeDistrictBabe Sat 04-Jan-14 19:43:17

@BeyondTheLimits

As one of those "mental" people, I am actually very pleased to know that if I were very ill and delusional, someone who was going to act in my best interests would be required to speak for me. In what world would I want to defend myself when my defence would be gibberish? I feel very strongly that speaking for myself in such a circumstance would do more harm than good, and your concern over it is quite perplexing.

thanksthanksthanksthanksthanks

Spero Sat 04-Jan-14 19:43:27

Thank you for sharing LittleDoris, I think it is important to hear this.

I accept that there is always room for checking what we are doing, in any field.

There is an uneasy relationship between paternalism and protection and I accept that the right balance is not always achieved.

But I also believe people are trying to get it right.

The Court of Protection is not some 'Star Chamber' as others consistently assert (and I think they need to explain that term, I have only hazy recollection from History A Level, but I assume it is not something good)

Lioninthesun Sat 04-Jan-14 19:46:36

OP, are you American? Some of your spellings make me think so. Just considering that perhaps there are different 'rights' for someone suffering from a mental episode over there?

LittleDoris Sat 04-Jan-14 19:53:57

Are abuse and rape victims children of a lesser God or don't they fit correctly into any political agenda nowadays?

I am sorry, I might be being a bit obtuse, but what do you mean by that?

Lioninthesun Sat 04-Jan-14 19:58:32

LittleDoris when you say 'no matter how incapable they are deemed to be.' I wonder have you ever seen someone having a schizophrenic episode? That is what I find intriguing about these media reports - how few people seem to genuinely know what one looks like. If you did I doubt you would be searching for a pen and paper to make notes to show you 'listened'.
I think your case must have been rather different...(without a mental episode I assume).

LokiIsMine Sat 04-Jan-14 19:58:33

I am sorry, I might be being a bit obtuse, but what do you mean by that?

I guess the explanation would be that you're getting worried for 'one case' without taking notice of the hundreds of other cases where human rights are disregarded every day.

It is true. Unless a disadvantaged, vulnerable group of people doesn't fit into a political agenda of 'someone', ordinary people don't pay any attention to it.

HollyHB Sat 04-Jan-14 20:00:40

Spero writes: ... what do you suggest we do? Simply take every mentally ill person to court? What about the people who are just too ill? ...

I can't solve these problems, I am not a judge, lawmaker or a physician.

But I do know that whatever practice is implemented must be compatible with both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. And the present practice, as revealed in the subject case is grossly incompatible with each of those.

Medicine and security must not be used as excuses to deprive people of basic human rights. Even if physicians have an opinion, only an opinion mind you, that they are incompetents.

Either it must all end so that people cannot be accused in secret or prosecuted with secret evidence or denied the opportunity to speak in their own defense including confronting accusers -or- if government decides contrariwise then Britain should withdraw from the Council of Europe and withdraw from the United Nations Organisation because our nation's policies are incompatible with the aims of those.

LittleDoris Sat 04-Jan-14 20:02:53

But I also believe people are trying to get it right.

I agree. But my experiences have lead me to believe that SS/HCPs/lawyers, are all very keen to try to fit everyone into a box. One size fits all. And that worries me.

When reading the reports that my SW submitted to case conferences it was very clear that it was a copy and paste exercise.

I am an intelligent person, I am also very articulate in rl (not so much in writing) and I was able to come out the other side. Someone who is really very ill wouldn't be able to. There is a fine line between helping someone and doing what's right, and trying to squeeze them into the box you have assigned them to.

I am not saying that every patient should be taken to court, just that they should be given the option. If they are too ill to respond to that option then they won't be able to go.

Lioninthesun Sat 04-Jan-14 20:03:23

I think this is a rocky area to be honest. In a pregnant state the mother (who was over term if I remember rightly) is in danger herself as well as her baby. I think to keep both of them alive something had to be done as quickly as possible. In this case I can see how her having an episode would be seen as a life-threatning risk for her and her baby. The fact she would probably not be able to see that herself at that moment in time, would be a problem for both lives, if you were to have your way.

LittleDoris Sat 04-Jan-14 20:07:53

I wonder have you ever seen someone having a schizophrenic episode?

Well yes I have. I was held at knife point by a person having a schizophrenic (among other things) episode.

As for the comment about victims of abuse and rapes children, the victim of abuse and/or rape is just as important as their children, and them being a victim does not render them an incapable parent. So I am still failing to see the point there.

HollyHB Sat 04-Jan-14 20:17:03

Lionin the sun writes: OP, are you American?

I'm a dual citizen US/UK. I am from Merseyside and Cheshire but lived in California for a couple of decades to please him angry before the divorce. I'm an OAP back home now, West Yorkshire bus pass and all smile. My one and only son is grown. I could do with a bit less wind and rain! Any more of my history might cloud my message so I'll leave it at that.

I don't know for sure but I think rights of American mental patients vary from state to state. I know that no-one, no-one, can be involuntarily held longer than 72 hours in California without appearing before a judge in person and having an opportunity to speak. And have a conference with a lawyer if they ask for one.

nennypops Sat 04-Jan-14 20:42:12

And in the case of the italian woman, the only interests that were being considered were those of the child. As in all CP cases.

Not so. At the stage when the Court of Protection was dealing with this matter, they were concerned solely with the best interests of the mother. Have you read their judgment? It makes that very clear.

Was anyone truly acting in the mothers best interests? Her representation hadn't even met her.

I've seen that assertion made a number of times, and I've also seen the people making the assertion asked to produce some evidence; they've never yet managed to produce it. It may or may not be true, but I'd like to know where it comes from. What usually happens in cases involving the Official Solicitor is that a caseworker is appointed, and often an outside independent solicitor, and one or both generally will go to see the patient. I don't know whether it did or did not happen here, and it would be helpful to know if the OP actually has evidence one way or the other.

LokiIsMine Sat 04-Jan-14 20:48:58

@LittleDoris

People see what they want to see. You said "Its easy to underestimate the need to be heard when one is involved in something like this."

The reference to abuse and rape victims was about 'that', the need to be heard. Something that nobody cares about because in the 95% of rape/abuse cases nobody cares to listen to them.
And it has nothing to do with their children, of course, don't even know why you cared to add that....

LokiIsMine Sat 04-Jan-14 20:50:06

nennypops

Have you read their judgment? It makes that very clear.

I can bet 100£ that nobody read it.

Another "mental" person here (side note, it is offensive) who would much rather have someone who is actually fully able to think clearly doing the thinking/talking for me when I am in the middle of a bad episode. What use would I be to myself in that situation? And I "only" have depression, can't imagine how much worse it would be if I suffered from one of the illnesses that involved delusion/hallucinations.

Saying all this I am outraged by mental health care in this country, we need more funding to it, and for some of that funding to go towards paying for more not less advocacy services, and not just in courts. If you can't communicate your needs well then you should have access to someone who can speak for you, and there is little access to that.

LittleDoris Sat 04-Jan-14 21:00:40

The reference to abuse and rape victims was about 'that', the need to be heard. Something that nobody cares about because in the 95% of rape/abuse cases nobody cares to listen to them.

I'm still not sure why we are talking about this on a thread about people suffering from mental illness?

Talking about one issue on one thread on one forum does not mean any of us do not have feelings on other issues in the world.

Start a thread about victims of abuse and rape not being listened to in court and I will gladly comment on it, being a victim of both.

Spero Sat 04-Jan-14 21:01:48

As she was sectioned for a severe mental illness, it may well be that her lawyer did not meet her in person.

It seems you can react to that information in two ways.

The first is to start concocting tales of State corruption and persecution and denial of human rights.

the second is to think that it may not have helped anyone to insist on a conference between a lawyer and someone in a psychotic state. It may in some cases not actually be safe.

I have dealt with clearly mentally ill clients on very few occasions. Each remains very clear in my mind because they were such uncomfortable and difficult meetings. I remember one women staring at me with such hatred I felt incredibly uneasy. I tried ineffectually to engage her for five minutes, she just got up and left the court.

What was I supposed to do? Physically restrain her? I had tried to explain that we were at court to discuss whether or not her child remained in foster care. There were really serious concerns about her mental health but she would not engage with either the SW or her MH Team.

I still think about her. I don't know what happened to her or her child.

LittleDoris Sat 04-Jan-14 21:04:44

If you can't communicate your needs well then you should have access to someone who can speak for you, and there is little access to that

I would most likely change my stance on this issue if there was better provision available. Right now I couldn't trust anyone to be the one "who is actually fully able to think clearly doing the thinking/talking for me when I am in the middle of a bad episode."

LittleDoris Sat 04-Jan-14 21:07:48

What was I supposed to do? Physically restrain her? I had tried to explain that we were at court to discuss whether or not her child remained in foster care. There were really serious concerns about her mental health but she would not engage with either the SW or her MH Team.

She was at court though. She was being given the opportunity.

We can't force anyone to engage any more than we should be able to keep someone away.

"Right now I couldn't trust anyone to be the one "who is actually fully able to think clearly doing the thinking/talking for me when I am in the middle of a bad episode.""

Can understand that, however we need a system where those who cannot speak for themselves can still be represented. What's the alternative? Hope they muddle through? Or make them wait until they can, even if that day might never come?

LittleDoris Sat 04-Jan-14 21:11:22

Having representation and having the chance to speak for oneself in court do not have to be mutually exclusive though.

No, but if you are very very unwell then they may well be.

LittleDoris Sat 04-Jan-14 21:17:51

That's a dangerous way to look at it though. Should we be taking the lowest common denominator?

Some people who are sectioned are lucid throughout. Some are lucid the next day/week. Some never are.

Are we supposed to structure the process to accomodate those who never are without considering those who are?

If someone is incapable of answering the question "do you want to speak in court" then of course they shouldn't be taken to court, but we should still be asking the question.

In that case we need trained mental health professionals to make those decisions, for example the kind of professionals who decide if someone needs to be sectioned

JulieJingleBellsMumsnet (MNHQ) Sat 04-Jan-14 21:21:12

Evening.

Many thanks to those who have pointed us in the direction of this thread.

There's quite a bit of terminology on here, such as 'mental' that we ask folk not to use.

This isn't about limiting valid debate, and of course some people may be posting in genuine ignorance. But where we think posters are refusing to engage sensibly with a debate, or appear to be unwilling to take on board the points that other posters are making, we will take action.

Our This Is My Child campaign www.mumsnet.com/campaigns/this-is-my-child has lots of information about the ways that people can make life a bit easier for disabled people and their carers. Mumsnet's raison d'etre is to make parents' lives easier, and we strongly believe that this includes all parents caring for children with disabilities, as well as all parents who have disabilities themselves.

MNHQ.

Thank you Julie

Spero Sat 04-Jan-14 21:23:53

LittleDoris of course, in an ideal world we would have systems and professionals who were responsive and flexible, who could see each client before them as the unique individual they undoubtedly are, who would tailor their interventions to what was best for that particular individual at that particular time.

But we so plainly don't live in an ideal world. Funding for essential child protection and mental health services has been cut to the bone and no doubt will be cut still further.

Rather than getting het up about non existant State sponsored corruption, I do wish people would divert their energies into what is actually happening and how it is hurting people NOW.

It is little wonder some very vulnerable people feel ignored and trampled upon. But if their SW/Mental Health worker is struggling with impossible case loads, I am afraid this is almost inevitable.

Thanks Julie

Bit hmm at it being a northern colloquialism too! Also lived in merseyside, cheshire and Yorkshire and the only people who use that term are the same small minded type of people who use other "colloquialisms" (that I won't type) for different nationalities and certain types of takeaway food. It's not a common term among civilised people.

HollyHB Sat 04-Jan-14 21:30:57

Spero wrote: As she was sectioned for a severe mental illness, it may well be that her lawyer did not meet her in person.

Her own lawyer who actually represents her, Stefano Oliva, disputes that her mental illness was severe. He argued it to be merely a "panic attack". The Official queen counsel appointed by the other side did not have a legal determination before boycotting any meeting with his or her client.

Even if she were severely ill her lawyer should have made that judgment for himself or herself, in person. Not relied on the allegations of the hostile party. The issue is not what the outcome of her assertion of mild illness would have been, the issue is that it was never allowed to be made.

Of course her illness may have become severe purely iatrogenically, we will likely never know because justice was perverted.

You do not get sectioned for a "panic attack". You do not even get sectioned even if you attempt suicide and beg to be sectioned. In order to be sectioned and then kept in beyond the standard 28 days you have to be severely ill.

DrinkFeckArseGirls Sat 04-Jan-14 21:34:56

'Mental' is derogatory. It means 'crazy' and it is a colloquialism in that capacity.

Jeez, thank OP, now I know I'm mental hmm

Spero Sat 04-Jan-14 21:35:02

O of course. I do apologise. How silly of me to think that her diagnosis of severe mental illness made by doctors could stand against the assertions of her lawyer?

Really Holly? Really? this is the best you can do?

But given you think "mental" is an acceptable colloquialism I don't you know much about mental illness let alone the severe ones

LittleDoris Sat 04-Jan-14 21:36:42

Well yes, perhaps an apology from the OP instead of a defensive response would have been more appropriate.

But we so plainly don't live in an ideal world. Funding for essential child protection and mental health services has been cut to the bone and no doubt will be cut still further.

I am not prepared to accept that this is way things are because of lack of funding.

The huge caseloads aren't helping, and are probably contributing to the feeling of "next...?" that I get from them. The individuals aren't my issue. I don't hold the opinion that people are inherently bad or corrupt. More that the system has too many cracks, and that decision makers need to change things.

Spero Sat 04-Jan-14 21:37:06

And WHY is the other side the 'hostile' party?

Hostile to what?

WHY do some people think there is any point or worth in constructing this narrative that there simply must be some malicious motive behind these court proceedings.

What malicious motive? The (ficitious) 'cash bounty' that would be paid for this baby?

AGoodPirate Sat 04-Jan-14 21:37:42

I don't know anything about the law but I have seen more than one psychotic episode and there would have been no benefit in anybody trying to engage the patient in any kind of important conversation to be honest, for weeks and weeks.
If you caught a seemingly lucid moment, it may not have represented their usual stance and may have indeed given you entirely the wrong opinion as to their true wishes.
Sometimes people are not well enough to speak for themselves, no matter how intelligent they may be.

Spero Sat 04-Jan-14 21:38:04

LittleDoris I agree that lack of funding is not the only issue.

But it is a pretty massive part of the problem and unless this is tackled I can't see much improvement any time soon.

LittleDoris Sat 04-Jan-14 21:39:01

I am not prepared to accept that this is way things are because of lack of funding.

Sorry, that reads entirely NOT how I intended it to.

I meant that we cannot just do nothing about it because the funding is being cut.

"I meant that we cannot just do nothing about it because the funding is being cut."

Totally agree. Not sure what can be done though? We really need mental health services to be taken more seriously, given more funding and not to tie the hands of the people trying to work in those areas.

Spero Sat 04-Jan-14 21:45:01

I completely agree.

We don't just give up because the situation is so dire.

But such a pity that so much time and energy has to be diverted dealing with those who peddle their conspiracy theories over and above any real care for the individuals who suffer.

Holly, both me and murder have said that as people who do suffer with mental illness, we agree with this decision. Is there any reason why you are refusing to engage with us and only arguing with spero and discussing the Italian woman?

HollyHB Sat 04-Jan-14 21:46:00

Littledoris wrote: If someone is incapable of answering the question "do you want to speak in court?" then of course they shouldn't be taken to court, but we should still be asking the question.

Thank you. That is a key point. The question needs to be asked, the offer made, regardless of all other considerations. And in the case of Alessandra Pacchieri it wasn't. She wasn't even notified that there was an upcoming court proceeding wherein a hostile party was seeking to deprive her of the right to make her own decision about surgery.

Maybe we're just too "mental" Beyond

Because of course understanding the question of would you like to go to court means they can understand what is actually being discussed in court. hmm

She suffers an illness known to cause delusions, has it occurred to you that it might actually be harmful to her to have been told about this court?

Spero Sat 04-Jan-14 21:51:19

If you asked a number of my clients if they had wanted to go to court they would have said 'yes please'! But on the advice of THEIR DOCTORS they were not taken to court because it was not possible to secure their safety or the safety of others they came into contact with.

If you want to volunteer to escort someone to court, for example who has fantasised about killing her child with scissors and then put that fanatasy into action, be my guest.

'Mental illness' covers a vast spectrum of behaviour and thought processes, from the quirky to the utterly delusional and dangerous.

Which is why I wanted you at the outset to clarify what you meant by someone being accused of 'being mental'.

This is an area I think we leave up to the doctors who are qualified to diagnose and recommend what is safe and practicable for THEIR patients.

Lioninthesun Sat 04-Jan-14 21:58:21

Hear hear Spero.
Doctors know best in a hospital. It is not a conspiracy.
Lawyers know best in a Court. It is not a conspiracy.

LittleDoris Sat 04-Jan-14 21:59:17

'Mental illness' covers a vast spectrum of behaviour and thought processes, from the quirky to the utterly delusional and dangerous.

But why are we heading straight for the lowest common denominator.

It really scares me that a man or woman (albeit a fully qualified doctor) who has a huge caseload, who is working long hours in a stressful job, is being trusted to say if someone is capable or not.

There is no impartiality either. If a senior doctor makes a decison, is anyone going to speak out if they disagree? In an ideal world, yes, in ther real world, the other hcps have their own huge case loads and long hours and they are not going to undermine their senior.

Lioninthesun Sat 04-Jan-14 22:00:08

And MP's should fight in Westminster, for things they and they alone can change.

Lioninthesun Sat 04-Jan-14 22:01:09

The lowest deniminator comes from the fact she was SECTIONED. You really can't get much lower than that on the mental scale.

Lioninthesun Sat 04-Jan-14 22:01:22

*denominator

LittleDoris Sat 04-Jan-14 22:01:38

Doctors know best in a hospital. It is not a conspiracy.
Lawyers know best in a Court. It is not a conspiracy.

I don't believe in conspiracies. But this is not always true. There are huge cracks. Huge.

Spero Sat 04-Jan-14 22:02:47

LittleDoris, we head to the lowest common denominator because that is the safest place to be if you are rushed off your feet and have five minutes to make a decision before you have another meeting or have to write a report or do another home visit etc etc.

Hence a lack of thoughtful and flexible individual reponses. Hence a real risk that people get treated in ways which are not necessarily the most atuned to their needs.

So just how do we make this better if there is no money for more professionals to have more time to make better diagnoses more quickly and provide more senstive treatment more effectively?

Skrifa Sat 04-Jan-14 22:03:15

I think it depends on the person. When my sister was sectioned, severely ill but lucid for some periods of time iyswim, she may have been in a fit state to be able to speak in court. She would also, imo, have needed representation as although she could speak in court, she couldn't have spoken fully or thoroughly enough for it actually to be useful. The second time she was sectioned, she absolutely was in no fit state to represent herself and would have posed a danger as well. I think the cases much each be decided individually- individuals should all have allowances made to ensure that, for as many as possible, they can speak. However, many patients who have been sectioned wont be able to, so it shouldn't be a hard rule, but one which allows for differentiation.

"It really scares me that a man or woman (albeit a fully qualified doctor) who has a huge caseload, who is working long hours in a stressful job, is being trusted to say if someone is capable or not."

That's where you need multiple doctors to agree independently, rather than putting all the onus on one.

I don't think we are heading for lowest common denominator, I imagine the majority of mental health patients have to go to court alone and without advocacy due to lack of funds/lack of help. But they don't make such a good news story.

Spero Sat 04-Jan-14 22:04:16

The difference between a 'crack' and a 'conspiracy' is also huge.

And hugely important. Its the difference between deliberate sadistic cruelty or utter corruption for financial motives - about which I don't think we can do anything much - and a system which is creaking but which we can work to improve because everyone genuinely wants to.

Skrifa Sat 04-Jan-14 22:05:41

The lowest deniminator comes from the fact she was SECTIONED. You really can't get much lower than that on the mental scale.

From my experience (sister has been sectioned twice, so very little experience in the scheme of things) even if you have been sectioned, the levels of severity can differ. Obviously, they will be quite extreme (as they've been sectioned in the first place) but some may be more extreme than others.

LittleDoris Sat 04-Jan-14 22:06:40

LittleDoris, we head to the lowest common denominator because that is the safest place to be if you are rushed off your feet and have five minutes to make a decision before you have another meeting or have to write a report or do another home visit etc etc.

Would a mother who is about to lose her child think its the safest place to be? One size does not fit all. It saddens me that this is the reality.

As for how to change it, I haven't a clue. I am not educated enough. But mental health being taken more seriously would be a good start. An any change will have to come from the top, as I said, I don't think this is the fault of those on the front line.

Lioninthesun Sat 04-Jan-14 22:06:48

There are huge cracks, but a line has to be drawn in the sand to protect the majority. Personally I think allowing a mentally impaired person to stand for themselves in Court just 72 hours after suffering (possibly still suffering) and episode isn't putting 'their' side forward. There are many ways we could change the laws here, but scaremongering among the public isn't one of them. You can only change that from Westminster and with evidence to prove your way is a better way for the majority.

Interestingly the worst mental health doctor I've ever been under the care of, one who I saw when I was suicidal, is one I think the OP would probably have approved of.

So I do agree there are cracks, but that's something that can be helped by having more people involved so it doesn't just come down to the say so of one individual. From what I know, when it comes to severe mental illness they don't leave it down to just one doctor, it's usually a team.

LittleDoris Sat 04-Jan-14 22:10:12

I agree Spero. And I really hope I am not coming across as though I am buying into a conspiracy.

HollyHB Sat 04-Jan-14 22:10:49

BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability wrote: ... both me and murder have said that as people who do suffer with mxxxxx illness, we agree with this decision. Is there any reason why you are refusing to engage with us

I'm not disagreeing with the decision to order the C-Section. Quite possibly it was the correct decision, I couldn't possibly know either way. My own son was born by C-Section by the way.

I am strongly disagreeing with the way in which the decision was made. I propose that Alessandra was and still is being denied (what the Americans would call) "due process" and that is much more serious than the merits of the case itself. The rottenness to the core of that court and it's secret deceitful process is far more important than the merits of the Pacchieri case. The case is a highly visible symptom of the disease.

That the process is secret and deceitful is illustrated in that it was reportedly ordered that she not be promptly told of her conviction of being of severely impaired capacity to make sound decisions due to a psychological disorder so she forfeited the right to self-determination as to contemplated surgery.

StupidMistakes Sat 04-Jan-14 22:12:44

I think that should depend upon whether the mental health issues have a consequence of the person nog being able to make appropriate decisions. Someone suffering depression may be more than able to make decisions and represent themselves well as may many other mental health problems. The question is to what extent does their illness affect their ability to make decisions and I believe that this is what needs to be accessed and whether their condition is stable.

You aren't reading what we've said, we've never commented on whether the c-section was right, no idea on that, it's physical/medical not related to mental health. We've been commenting on whether she should have gone to court or been told about court. Both agree that severe mental illness could mean that going to court or even knowing about it is not necessarily in her best interests, possibly even detrimental to her mental health (which should be priority).

Devora Sat 04-Jan-14 22:16:17

I have a close friend who has a very severe psychotic illness. I supported her through reporting to the police that she had been raped by a nurse while under section. The police basically rolled their eyes and laughed at her. It was hideous.

On the other hand, I was not convinced myself that the incident had actually happened, and I could see that it would be possible to have her as a credible witness in front of a jury. Don't get me wrong - I am almost certain that she has been horribly abused while psychotic; I have seen her bloodstained and bruised, with torn clothing, and unable to account for what has happened to her. She is intensely vulnerable while psychotic and I think that any number of people may have abused her. But she communicates her pain and distress through wild and paranoid allegations, and I truly don't know what to do with that.

The answer, in her case, can't be to expect her to present her own case within our current system. It must be through greater provision of sensitive support and skilled advocacy, surely.

AngelaDaviesHair Sat 04-Jan-14 22:19:39

Lots of people never speak in court during their court cases do they? That doesn't mean their wishes and opinions are ignored. There might be a written statement out in, or the lawyers conveys their views and wishes to the judge.

It strikes me as unfair to assume Pacchieri's QC 'boycotted' a meeting with her-we don't know what the QC knew, did, or said or why.

What murder said.

And don't think that the smartarse "mxxxxx" or lack of apology have gone unnoticed either.

AngelaDaviesHair Sat 04-Jan-14 22:19:59

Sorry, put in not out in

Maryz Sat 04-Jan-14 22:24:59

Oh for fuck's sake.

I mean really.

For fuck's sake.

Spero Sat 04-Jan-14 22:25:01

That the process is secret and deceitful is illustrated in that it was reportedly ordered that she not be promptly told of her conviction of being of severely impaired capacity to make sound decisions due to a psychological disorder so she forfeited the right to self-determination as to contemplated surgery.

If both my legs are bitten off by an angry bear, I haven't 'forfeited' my right to run the London Marathon. I am incapable of so doing.

someone in a serious delusional state may have no capacity whatsoever to 'self determine'.

Why do you blame the 'process' as 'secret and deceitful' when she was seriously mentally ill?

O wait, of course you don't accept that. Because a lawyer said it was just an itty bitty old panic attack.

Spero Sat 04-Jan-14 22:26:26

Maryz! Courtesy is our watchword!

Although I can appreciate how difficult this is sometimes.

Maryz Sat 04-Jan-14 22:27:49

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Maryz Sat 04-Jan-14 22:28:14

Why do I have to be courteous to him [sulks]

Spero Sat 04-Jan-14 22:29:14

Politeness is the virtue of kings Maryz

<polishes halo>

Maryz Sat 04-Jan-14 22:30:11

Sorry miss

<wanders off, muttering>

HollyHB Sat 04-Jan-14 22:31:00

MurderOfGoths wrote: But given you think "mental" is an acceptable colloquialism I don't you know much about mental illness ...
LittleDoris: Well yes, perhaps an apology from the OP instead of a defensive response would have been more appropriate.

I agree I don't know much about any kind of illness, and I apologise unreservedly for using a word found to be offensive. Which is why, in a previous message I substituted a longer form (being of severely impaired capacity to make sound decisions due to a psychological disorder) and will continue so to do. I do seem to be singled out for using the word in question I might add.

AnyFuckerForAMincePie Sat 04-Jan-14 22:32:02

Stay with us, mary < firm upper arm grip >

AngelaDaviesHair Sat 04-Jan-14 22:33:02

Maryz, what I wanted to post, but decided not to (being all grown up and responsible an ting for 2014)!

If you'd read what you'd quoted from LittleDoris you'd know why you were being "singled out"

Spero Sat 04-Jan-14 22:35:09

I agree I don't know much about any kind of illness

It is felicitous that we do share some common ground op.

(see Maryz? This is easy!)

But apology accepted and for the record the phrase "mentally ill" is fine to be used.

singled out?

<searches for anyone else on this thread that has called people "mental">

nope, just you.

HollyHB why did you start such an opinionated thread then on something you now admit you know very little about?

HollyHB Sat 04-Jan-14 22:37:57

Spero wrote: Why do you blame the 'process' as 'secret and deceitful' when she was seriously mentally ill?

How is her being seriously mentally ill in anyway relevant to the issue that she was denied due process to which she is entitled as a matter of human rights? Stop with these red herrings, that is not what the House of Lords enquiry is all about.

Why don't you get it that the problem is not that she was incapable of putting her case? The problem is that she was prevented from presenting her case.

Spero Sat 04-Jan-14 22:39:10

I can't solve these problems, I am not a judge, lawmaker or a physician

Says Holly, wisely. And yet she starts such a thread, based on such firm opinions!

"How is her being seriously mentally ill in anyway relevant to the issue that she was denied due process to which she is entitled as a matter of human rights?"

Please at least attempt to read what people are telling you. Just for once.

Again Holly

For someone who at 22:31 admitted they know very little about mental health you again seem to have some very strong opinions and in-depth knowledge of the case...

So we've established you're not a doctor, perhaps you are a lawyer?

As you are so sure that you know the facts of this case, and they don't match the actual facts?

Spero Sat 04-Jan-14 22:40:46

If she was capable of putting her case, she wouldn't have been found to have lacked capacity.

She was severely mentally ill. She lacked capacity to understand legal proceedings. She was therefore represented by the Official Solicitor who instructed - at massive cost to the tax payer - a QC to represent her in court.

Which bit of this are you having trouble 'not getting' ?

HollyHB Sat 04-Jan-14 22:43:40

WestmorlandSausage wrote: HollyHB why did you start such an opinionated thread then on something you now admit you know very little about?

I know next to nothing about medicine. I know quite a fair bit about European human rights. Which is what the reported HoL enquiry is about.

What is remarkable about the Pacchieri case is the law. The medicine in the Pacchieri case is (as far as I know, but I don't really know) quite ordinary.

Spero Sat 04-Jan-14 22:45:10

So tell us all please, in lingering detail, what part of European Law has been breached.

Inform us please, leaving nothing out, as to why her crack legal team of Italian and Brummie lawyers have as yet been unable to draft her grounds of appeal.

nennypops Sat 04-Jan-14 22:47:17

Why don't you get it that the problem is not that she was incapable of putting her case? The problem is that she was prevented from presenting her case.

Are you saying she was capable of putting her case? What is your evidence for that? And please don't cite the Italian lawyer who did not see her at the time, and who claimed that the baby was delivered four weeks early - even she doesn't suggest that that is true.

And I ask again, what is your evidence for the assertion that her lawyers did not see her?

Alright, look, you do acceptt that mental illness is an illness like any other right? In that it's real and has real effects? So now we'll substitute it with a physical disability in an analogy.

Imagine you have someone who is mute, they literally cannot speak for themselves. Would you put them in court and expect them to speak? Of course you wouldn't, because they are incapable of doing so and not only would it be pointless it'd be cruel and would disadvantage them. In their case you'd probably allow them to "speak" through another, you'd work around their disability. It wouldn't be denying them their human rights just because they couldn't do the same thing a non-mute person could do.

In the same way, if someone is so mentally unwell/disabled that they cannot communicate, possibly cannot understand, and possibly will be harmed by going through the court process you are not denying their human rights by putting their health needs first. It would only be denying them if you denied them representation, and she wasn't, she had a representative in court, speaking for her.

AngelaDaviesHair Sat 04-Jan-14 22:49:13

AP's interests were protected by having lawyers to represent her in court. If they did not speak to her or put her 'views', then as I understand it, it was because AP was not well enough to see them or express a view. Do you disagree that this was the case?

Do you agree that sometimes (though not often) people are too mentally ill to meet lawyers, have any meaningful consultations, or even express a coherent view about what should happen?

Of course, often they are well enough to do those things, and should get the chance. I'm not sure AP's case demonstrates that people are routinely being denied the opportunity, which seems to be the premiss of your OP (but apologies if I've got that wrong).

Spero Sat 04-Jan-14 22:49:29

You see Holly, a certain Mr John Hemming Esq has already taken this issue of the Official Solicitor representing those who lack capacity all the way to the European Court and he lost.

So I would be really interested to know which European Laws have been so grossly violated in this case.

HollyHB Sat 04-Jan-14 22:58:41

Maryz wrote: I don't suppose, Holly, you would like to give us a list of the Mumsnet names you have used in the past and whether or not you have been banned under those names, would you?

Please address the issue, not the person and enough with the ad hominem attacks, OK?

For your information, not that your low swipe deserves the dignity of a response but for the benefit of your audience: - I have only ever had one mumsnet account, and this is it.

Spero Sat 04-Jan-14 22:59:05

What is remarkable about the Pacchieri case is the law.

WHAT is so remarkable? Seriously, I would like to know what your take on this is.

Spero Sat 04-Jan-14 22:59:45

Mmm. that phrase 'ad hominem attacks' has a very familiar ring to it.

Spero Sat 04-Jan-14 23:00:32

So Holly, now you are back, presumably from adding more 5 star reviews on Amazon, could you tell me what is so remarkable about the way in which the law was applied in this case?

Spero Sat 04-Jan-14 23:02:46

I can wait Holly. I've been waiting nearly four years now.

johnhemming Fri 04-Dec-09 08:38:56

It is interesting how many practitioenrs here when presented with an argument use ad hominem attacks rather than dealing with the argument itself.
-----------------------------------------------
johnhemming Thu 05-Dec-13 18:23:35
Here is someone else's response to Carl Gardner's ad hominem attacks on me
theviewfromcullingworth.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-culture-of-social-work-and.html
-------------------------------------------------
johnhemming Sat 14-Dec-13 21:39:02
There is a form of debate which is to be personally critical of someone whose view you disagree with (ie playing the ball rather than the man). I am criticial of the malpractise in the family division of the UK courts. However, apart from denying self evidence truths and making false allegations the main approach of the apologists for the system is to be personally critical (the ad hominem attack).

------------------------------------------------------
johnhemming Sat 14-Dec-13 22:06:36
Yes, but using ad hominem attacks is a sign of a weakness in your underlying argument. In fact it does not appear that you have an underlying argument.

---------------------------------------------------------
johnhemming Sun 15-Dec-13 08:50:11

This is a reasonably good definition of ad hominem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
----------------------------------------------------------
HollyHB Sat 04-Jan-14 22:58:41
Maryz wrote: I don't suppose, Holly, you would like to give us a list of the Mumsnet names you have used in the past and whether or not you have been banned under those names, would you?

Please address the issue, not the person and enough with the ad hominem attacks, OK?

For your information, not that your low swipe deserves the dignity of a response but for the benefit of your audience: - I have only ever had one mumsnet account, and this is it.
-------------------------------------------------------------

HollyHB Sat 04-Jan-14 23:08:18

Spero writes: You see Holly, a certain Mr John Hemming Esq has already taken this issue of the Official Solicitor representing those who lack capacity all the way to the European Court and he lost. So I would be really interested to know which European Laws have been so grossly violated in this case

Well, we shall see. Time will tell. The House of Lords enquiry seems to take a view that human rights of persons with severely impaired capacity to make sound decisions due to a psychological disorder have not been honoured at law.

As to the gratuitous swipe at Hemming, I fail to see any relevance to the issue at hand.

AnyFuckerForAMincePie Sat 04-Jan-14 23:08:23

Ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem

Where have I heard that before..?

GREAT MINDS SPERO!

AnyFuckerForAMincePie Sat 04-Jan-14 23:09:13

Gosh, what a timely cross post grin

"Well, we shall see. Time will tell."

Time has told. He lost.

AngelaDaviesHair Sat 04-Jan-14 23:10:46

Did you see my post, OP?

Spero Sat 04-Jan-14 23:11:55

Holly, Holly, Holly.

why so coy? Surely you wish to share with me your interest and learning in European law.

WHY was the implementation of law in this case so remarkable?

You must have some kind of argument in mind to be able to make that statement.

You see, if you won't tell me I might have to be drawn to the conclusion that don't have a clue what you are talking about.

if you fail to see the relevance of your thread to John Hemming Holly then you must have been living under a rock for the last three weeks.

Either that or as you have already admitted - you don't necessarily know what you are talking about in regards to this case

"You see, if you won't tell me I might have to be drawn to the conclusion that don't have a clue what you are talking about."

Or perhaps you are the type of poster who likes to make bold statements of fact, with absolutely no evidence to back them up?

AnyFuckerForAMincePie Sat 04-Jan-14 23:13:57

Holly versus European Law and Holly won ????

I must have missed that memo

KickassCoalition Sat 04-Jan-14 23:15:37

OMG.

I actually can't believe what I think I might be reading.

Also, in a Northern ex-mining town, that isn't a colloquialism, it's an insult.

Spero Sat 04-Jan-14 23:16:53

O yes, Anyfucker, in the world where Italian lawyer's diagnosis of mental illness can trump that of a qualified doctor, it is highly probably that Holly has taken on the Strasbourg court and given it a good old intellectual kicking.

AnyFuckerForAMincePie Sat 04-Jan-14 23:19:29

Good to know, spero, good to know

< wanders off to give The Court of Human Rights a good ole kick up the shitter re. a Living Wage, I'm just in that sort of fucking mood >

if I'm not back in 10 mins, send out a search party

Holly, I don't suppose you know where EdwardSnowden has gone? I thought you might maybe be friends, you seem to share similar values? He seems to have disappeared...

Mignonette Sat 04-Jan-14 23:26:16

Well we know who this is.

HollyHB Sat 04-Jan-14 23:27:33

AngelaDaviesHair wrote: If they did not speak to her or put her 'views', then as I understand it, it was because AP was not well enough to see them or express a view. ... Do you agree that sometimes (though not often) people are too ... ill to meet lawyers, have any meaningful consultations, or even express a coherent view about what should happen?

Sometimes yes. But no-one is ever too ill or too disabled to be notified that there is legal action being taken against them. No-one is ever too ill or too disabled to be offered a chance to see the evidence being presented. No-one is ever too ill or too disabled to be offered a chance to speak for themselves, even if they are too ill to be able to accept the offer.

A fact, if it be so, that someone expects them not to be able to hear, see or accept those offers is no reason not to make them. It's a matter of human rights. Which is where we came in and where most posters want to get away from. How about we get back to human rights?

And, incidentally, that a person is not well enough to to see them or express a view is not a reason for a lawyer to fail to offer his or her client a conference. Eyesight is truly irrelevant.

Spero Sat 04-Jan-14 23:29:34

Yes Holly. Let's get back to human rights.

Answer my question: What human rights have been breached in the case of Alessandra Pacchieri?
What was so remarkable about the implementation of the law in this case?
When are we going to see the appeal do you think?

"But no-one is ever too ill or too disabled to be notified that there is legal action being taken against them. No-one is ever too ill or too disabled to be offered a chance to see the evidence being presented. No-one is ever too ill or too disabled to be offered a chance to speak for themselves, even if they are too ill to be able to accept the offer."

Your lack of knowledge of is showing again, sometimes people are that ill. I know it's a horrible thought, and hard to imagine if you have no experience of mental illness, but it's true.

Mignonette Sat 04-Jan-14 23:30:22

You see, some of us DO have in depth professional knowledge of psychiatric illness (never met a 'mental' in my life BTW) and can honestly say that you have no clue about it.

If you walk fast, you might be able to get a swift one in before the witching hour.

Do toddle off.

People, IGNORE IGNORE^

scalesagain Sat 04-Jan-14 23:30:23

In my experience of the court of protection, people who are subject to proceedings have been allocated an IMCA (Independent Mental Capacity Advocate) who has instructed Solicitors on their behalf, if the Official Solicitor has not taken on the case. There often appears a conflict between human rights and mental capacity, for example when people have been found to lack capacity as to marriage, this conflicts with the right to family life...

Spero Sat 04-Jan-14 23:30:49

And, incidentally, that a person is not well enough to to see them or express a view is not a reason for a lawyer to fail to offer his or her client a conference. Eyesight is truly irrelevant

Are you trying to be funny here?
Sorry, just my humour radar might be a little 'off' these days.

HollyHB Sat 04-Jan-14 23:31:58

Snowden? The Edward Snowden?

I don't get it, please explain.

scalesagain Sat 04-Jan-14 23:32:35

Murder once proceedings are issued in the COP, the person is notified. Or at least an attempt to notify is made. In person, not by post, and we have to tell the court that this has been done.

IamtheZombie Sat 04-Jan-14 23:32:56

I have only ever had one mumsnet account, and this is it.

Interesting. Prior to starting this thread earlier today your entire posting history consisted of 7 posts on a thread about gender dysphoria in June 2011 and 3 posts on one of the AP threads just before Christmas 2013.

You certainly lurk a lot.

Maryz Sat 04-Jan-14 23:34:00

Westmoreland, I really hope that your posts isn't deleted.

After all, you are making no accusations, you are just quoting from other threads, helping to back up the op, no?

Maryz Sat 04-Jan-14 23:34:24

Are we allowed to use the word "disingenuous" these days?

Spero Sat 04-Jan-14 23:36:35

As long as you do so politely Maryz

Mignonette Sat 04-Jan-14 23:36:49

johnhemming Fri 04-Dec-09 08:38:56

It is interesting how many practitioenrs here when presented with an argument use ad hominem attacks rather than dealing with the argument itself.
---------------------------------------
johnhemming Thu 05-Dec-13 18:23:35
Here is someone else's response to Carl Gardner's ad hominem attacks on me
theviewfromcullingworth.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-culture-of-social-work-and.html
-----------------------------------------
johnhemming Sat 14-Dec-13 21:39:02
There is a form of debate which is to be personally critical of someone whose view you disagree with (ie playing the ball rather than the man). I am criticial of the malpractise in the family division of the UK courts. However, apart from denying self evidence truths and making false allegations the main approach of the apologists for the system is to be personally critical (the ad hominem attack).

----------------------------------------------
johnhemming Sat 14-Dec-13 22:06:36
Yes, but using ad hominem attacks is a sign of a weakness in your underlying argument. In fact it does not appear that you have an underlying argument.

-------------------------------------------------
johnhemming Sun 15-Dec-13 08:50:11

This is a reasonably good definition of ad hominem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
--------------------------------------------------
HollyHB Sat 04-Jan-14 22:58:41
Maryz wrote: I don't suppose, Holly, you would like to give us a list of the Mumsnet names you have used in the past and whether or not you have been banned under those names, would you?

Please address the issue, not the person and enough with the ad hominem attacks, OK?

For your information, not that your low swipe deserves the dignity of a response but for the benefit of your audience: - I have only ever had one mumsnet account, and this is it.

^

THIS

Spero Sat 04-Jan-14 23:37:16

Yes, Westmoreland was simply putting that phrase in context for me as I wasn't sure I understood what it meant.

AnyFuckerForAMincePie Sat 04-Jan-14 23:37:33

I did that search too, zombs

I am sure HQ did too

AngelaDaviesHair Sat 04-Jan-14 23:39:46

Sometimes yes. But no-one is ever too ill or too disabled to be notified that there is legal action being taken against them. No-one is ever too ill or too disabled to be offered a chance to see the evidence being presented. No-one is ever too ill or too disabled to be offered a chance to speak for themselves, even if they are too ill to be able to accept the offer.

Thank you for answering. I've got to say, I profoundly disgree with that though. Sometimes, people are too ill. There would be no point in, for example, distressing a psychotic patient with a visit from strangers speaking words the patient could not understand or might find frightening just to be able to say 'Oh, well, we did offer Holly the chance to speak in court.'

Sometimes, people are too disabled. Take cases in the Court of Protection for patients in a persistent vegetative state. No prospect of their participation, obviously (so obvious it seems odd even typing that out) and going through the motions of asking them would be no more than a bizarre and unedifying ritual.

But I fear I am taking this odd thread too seriously.

Maryz Sat 04-Jan-14 23:41:37

To be fair, I'm pretty sure Holly has been on a few threads that are no more, so he may have posted a few more than appear.

They were all on the same topic iirc.

Maryz Sat 04-Jan-14 23:43:29

Angela, it's a serious topic, you probably think we are derailing for fun. But unfortunately you have come in late, on the back of about a dozen other threads that have all been seriously odd.

Some of us are a bit cross and frustrated about the whole thing.

But you are absolutely right. Some people are too ill (sadly) to make decisions for themselves. A fact that the op doesn't seem to even want to understand [sigh]

AnyFuckerForAMincePie Sat 04-Jan-14 23:43:42

Wot!!

Deleted threads, you mean ?

< sharp intake of breath >

AngelaDaviesHair Sat 04-Jan-14 23:46:22

No, you misunderstand me Maryz. I know the history v well (top lurker). I meant I was bothering to post straight, as though this were a heartfelt search for insight by the OP, rather than just saying 'Yah bollocks' which would probably be better.

<looks forward to seeing people wheeled into courtrooms on their hospital beds, while they are in a coma>

<after all, no such thing as too ill>

HollyHB Sat 04-Jan-14 23:46:48

Spero: Yes Holly. Let's get back to human rights.

Shall we try again, fresh start?

A House of Lords inquiry (sic) about human rights in court
is being told that "People ... are being denied justice ..."

Emily Dugan, Social Affairs Correspondent, published Friday 03 January 2014
Brief, fair use, excerpt:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
People with ... health problems are being denied justice by some Court of Protection judges who fail to even consider hearing patients’ testimony, leading lawyers have told a House of Lords inquiry.
...
Charlotte Haworth Hird, a solicitor who contributed to the submission, said that depriving patients of the right to speak for themselves “can lead to injustice”. She added: “Just because someone is deemed not to have capacity doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have the chance to speak to the judge about an important decision affecting their lives.
...
The decisions of the court came under scrutiny earlier ... when it emerged Italian mother Alessandra Pacchieri had a caesarean section performed against her wishes and that her daughter was ...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I submit that denial of justice and human rights is taking place in England, is improper, and should be remedied by parliament pursuant to the subject House of Lords activity.

Please can we agree on that?

scalesagain Sat 04-Jan-14 23:47:48

Angela It is the law though that they have to be notified. The IMCA should not be a stranger.
In my experience of the court of protection, people who are subject to proceedings have been allocated an IMCA (Independent Mental Capacity Advocate) who has instructed Solicitors on their behalf.
Once proceedings are issued in the COP, the person is notified. Or at least an attempt to notify is made. In person, not by post, and we have to tell the court that this has been done.
Also we have to notify other people with an interest in the case, this could be the care home and immediate family members.

AngelaDaviesHair Sat 04-Jan-14 23:49:02

No, OP, we can't. One lawyer's view, in submissions to an inquiry, as paraphrased by a journalist, was that depriving patients of the right to speak 'can [not always does] lead to injustice'.

This is not evidence, let alone proof, that denial of justice and human rights is taking place in this country.

Spero Sat 04-Jan-14 23:50:09

Tell me how Alessandra Pacchieri was denied justice.

You say the law in THIS case was remarkable.

you say you know a lot about European law. So tell me which European law was broken.

Don't tell me that some lawyers are worried the system isn't working as well as it should be.

Tell me what law has been broken.

AngelaDaviesHair Sat 04-Jan-14 23:50:30

Ok thanks, scalesagain, that's interesting.

"Please can we agree on that?"

No, because of all the reasons already given.

scalesagain Sat 04-Jan-14 23:50:38

There is such a thing as too ill, but that does not mean that the imca stops visiting and trying to involve the patient as much as possible.

Maryz Sat 04-Jan-14 23:50:57

Sorry Angela, I would quite understand, though, if anyone coming late to this thought we were all (to use an inappropriate phrase for this thread) off our rockers.

I'm a bit dizzy, too. From all the going round in circles you understand grin

AngelaDaviesHair Sat 04-Jan-14 23:51:28

Heh heh.

Maryz Sat 04-Jan-14 23:52:04

"People with health problems are being denied justice"

Ok, references please. Accurate ones, with links and all. Preferably not in the form of home-made spreadsheets.

Or in the form of "someone I know heard someone say ..."

scales So is this a compulsory thing, and is it likely that they did actually try to talk to her?

ah crap - I was just interested in the use of the phrase ad hominem I wasn't speculating that Holly might be John Hemming or anything honest MNHQ

Its just such a peculiar phrase that i've only come across recently on these kind of threads thats all. I wondered if it was a 'thing'. It stood out to me.

Please don't ban me <wibble>

Maryz Sat 04-Jan-14 23:54:25

Oh, and if anyone knows Edward personally, could they please ask him to answer Spero's queries on the other thread.

Ta ever so

<proves to all that Maryz is politer than a polite thing in Politesville>

I'm beginning to wonder if you have more understanding than we are crediting you with as to what it means to be delusional

IMCA is compulsory under the mental capacity act if someone has no one else to speak on their behalf e.g family or friends. It is unusual for someone not to be 'befriended' in some shape or form in relation to mental capacity/ best interests decisions.

Not to be confused with the Nearest Relative provisions under the mental health act.

Maryz Sat 04-Jan-14 23:56:18

Excellent sentence Beyond [approving]

Even I can't figure out whether that's a compliment or not.

AngelaDaviesHair Sat 04-Jan-14 23:57:06

Beyond!

Mignonette Sat 04-Jan-14 23:57:06

PM EVERYBODY

Maryz Sat 04-Jan-14 23:59:11

Anyhow, I'm off to bed.

Night all flowerssmile[ginandvalium]

Spero Sun 05-Jan-14 00:00:11

Its been a pleasure seeing how courteous you can be when you try Maryz.

Night all!

scalesagain Sun 05-Jan-14 00:02:04

Functions of independent mental capacity advocates
36.—(1) The appropriate authority may make regulations as to the functions of independent mental capacity advocates.
(2) The regulations may, in particular, make provision requiring an advocate to take such steps as may be prescribed for the purpose of-
(a) providing support to the person whom he has been instructed to represent ("P") so that P may participate as fully as possible in any relevant decision;
(b) obtaining and evaluating relevant information;
(c) ascertaining what P's wishes and feelings would be likely to be, and the beliefs and values that would be likely to influence P, if he had capacity;
(d) ascertaining what alternative courses of action are available in relation to P;
(e) obtaining a further medical opinion where treatment is proposed and the advocate thinks that one should be obtained.
(3) The regulations may also make provision as to circumstances in which the advocate may challenge, or provide assistance for the purpose of challenging, any relevant decision.

I don't have any inside knowledge of that particular case, but think it highly unlikely that she did not have an advocate.

Thank you for that scales, that's good to know

AngelaDaviesHair Sun 05-Jan-14 00:06:38

Full disclosure-Holly has just sent me the following by PM:

I don't want to derail the thread any further, which is why I am sending you a PM, something I rarely do (this might, only might, be my first time).

But when you write:-
Thank you for answering. I've got to say, I profoundly disgree with that though. Sometimes, people are too ill. There would be no point in, for example, distressing a psychotic patient with a visit from strangers speaking words the patient could not understand or might find frightening just to be able to say 'Oh, well, we did offer Holly the chance to speak in court.'

I read that as meaning that you think medical care is more important than human rights. And, while respecting for your right to your views, I take the opposite view. Given a terminal choice (if it came down to it) between life and principle, I would choose principle. I don't expect most people would but then they say time cures most things. Eventually.

Let us cordially agree to differ on this.

I have replied to say there was no reason not to post that response on the thread, and askedHolly not to PM me again.

In summary (only 7 secs long i promise!)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=GygzX4GFDBw

HollyHB Sun 05-Jan-14 00:16:13

MurderOfGoths wrote: "Please can we agree on that?" No, because of all the reasons already given.

Well if we can't agree that that is the case then can we at least agree that the House of Lords is being told by the enquiry it commissioned that that is the case? (i.e. HoL being told of denial of justice, denial of human rights, etc)

Irrespective of whether or not they are being led astray by the enquiry.

nennypops Sun 05-Jan-14 00:29:41

I'm encouraged by scales' posts to ask once again what is the basis for Holly's assertion that Ms Pacchieri was not seen by a lawyer. Only I've asked twice and been ignored. A phenomenon which, I might add, is strangely familiar.

AGoodPirate Sun 05-Jan-14 03:17:36

What a fascinating thread.

Lioninthesun Sun 05-Jan-14 10:09:24

John the trouble is they are being 'told' a load of made up facts and figures with no backing. So really a lot of time and effort has gone on something about as useful as a chocolate teapot. Next time just ask for funding. If you aren't thrown out on your arse before then!

As for "But no-one is ever too ill or too disabled to be notified that there is legal action being taken against them. No-one is ever too ill or too disabled to be offered a chance to see the evidence being presented. No-one is ever too ill or too disabled to be offered a chance to speak for themselves, even if they are too ill to be able to accept the offer." I beg you to actually meet a person in a psychotic state. As a millionaire MP, I am sure you can pull a few strings to get a free viewing in your own constituency. You might understand why some of us feel you are making a mockery of mental health issues, let alone human rights.

Spero Sun 05-Jan-14 10:27:57

Could I just put in a general plea for a higher quality Conspiracy Theorist please?

there is a lot of energy, experience and intelligence on these threads from various posters. I wonder what we could achieve if we could actually have some sensible debate about the real problems?

Spero Sun 05-Jan-14 10:52:49

Sorry op, ignored your question.

Read what you posted again

Charlotte Haworth Hird, a solicitor who contributed to the submission, said that depriving patients of the right to speak for themselves “can lead to injustice

so Charlotte is concerned that this practice 'can' lead to injustice. She may well be right, depending on how each individual patient is being supported in each individual case.

But again, how was Alessandra Pacchieri treated unjustly in her case? Where is the 'remarkable' breach of the law here?

"Well if we can't agree that that is the case then can we at least agree that the House of Lords is being told by the enquiry it commissioned that that is the case?"

Tell you what, you answer Spero's question and I might answer yours

Lioninthesun Sun 05-Jan-14 11:17:27

I'd also like more midwives, maybe the one that Cameron promised all of those years ago that haven't materialised. Could stop a lot of deaths and would be quite nice, you know.
Any more for suggestions of things an MP could be positively putting his mind to, to take to Westminster?

Spero Mon 06-Jan-14 08:05:06

bit.ly/1g9OR6D

I assume holly will be equally outraged by this?
And tell me it has nothing to do with lack of staff, lack of training etc but it's all down to one big State conspiracy.

Spero Mon 06-Jan-14 08:08:25

And look! It's in Birmingham! What will JH have to say about this I wonder?

KosherBacon Thu 09-Jan-14 12:33:22

Mental" is a common (perhaps Northern) colloquialism for a person whose capacity to make sound decisions is severely impaired by a psychological disorder. It is much shorter to write "mental" than to write "with severely impaired capacity to make sound decisions due to a mental disorder" and almost everyone (though apparently not everyone) is familiar with commonplace English colloquialisms

Having worked "oop north" in mental health for 13 years,mi. An commit that "mental" definitely isn't used as a colloquialism.

BaileyWhite Thu 09-Jan-14 14:55:09

Agreed. There are less convoluted ways of writing about MH problems whilst refraining from toolisms and prejudical comments.

Mummra13 Tue 25-Mar-14 11:31:32

I'm suprised no one has mentioned the report which is now widely availible. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldselect/ldmentalcap/139/139.pdf

Rather unfortunately it appears that many people actually have had their rights unjustly violated either through incompetence or neglect of the MCA which has been the law for 9 years now. Hopefully with this report health workers and courts will start to learn how to properly implement the MCA.

As for HollyHB brining up Alessandra Pacchieri. I think it is less troubling that the MCA may not have been followed in light that she had been treated for severe schizophrenia and psychosis instead of being treated for severe bi-polar. This would explain why she did not get better in the health trust care yet made a miraculous under the care of her doctors back in Italy. I do not believe it was done in malice, I just think her psychiatrist in England was either very bad at their job or believed schizophrenia and bi-polar are interchangable. The treatment for the two personality disorders are different.

Nennypops Sat 29-Mar-14 12:52:15

Mummra13, the psychiatrist concerned in the Pacchieri case is very reputable, and you are reading far too much into one reference in one judgment to schizophrenia. There was nothing "miraculous" about her cure once in Italy; the simple fact is that, when in England, she was very ill indeed, the treatment they could give her whilst she was pregnant was limited, and there are no overnight cures for bipolar disorder. If she was well several months later, that is not a miracle cure.

Mummra13 Sat 29-Mar-14 15:39:22

I reread Mostyn's judgement. There is no mention of Bi-polar to be found, the reasons given for incapacity are schizophrenia and psychosis. I can not find any refernce to schizophrenia in judge Newton's judgement. The only thing I can think of for the reason is a terrible misdiagnosis that may very well have caused PTSD in this poor woman and a delay in her recovery.

Confusing schizophrenia with bi-polar is not a minor issue as the treatment varies quite a bit between the two. The trust had for weeks after the c-sect which chould have allowed for full treatment without fear of pregnancy.

My hope is that with the new transparency guidelines such cases will be more easily examined for what went right and what might have gone wrong.

Nennypops Sat 29-Mar-14 16:03:28

Not even Ms Pacchieri has suggested that she was misdiagnosed or treated wrongly. Total red herring.

Fortunately the transparency guidelines will not allow the great British public to pore over people's private medical records.

I notice that you're a new poster. It is indeed strange that people getting into this debate always seem to pop up out of nowhere, obsess about it, and then disappear. Anyone would think it was the same person every time.

Mummra13 Sat 29-Mar-14 16:12:38

I came to post about the report. I noticed someone mention the case and I gave my thoughts. I apologize if you were offended by my use of freedom of expression. When did Ms Pacchieri say that she was diagnosed correctly or suffered from schizophrenia?

More to the point what are your thoughts on the house of lords report? Seeing how that was the topic I came to post about.

Mummra13 Sat 29-Mar-14 20:27:23

If Ms Pacchieri does suffer from both schizophrenia and bi-polar than that is very relevant to both judgements. My question is why is schizophrenia important in the Mostyn judgement, but not important in the Newton judgement, and vice versa on bi-polar.

Nennypops Sat 29-Mar-14 20:58:35

You really do come over as uncannily like you did last time the last poster who was desperate to discuss this case. Sorry, I'm not playing.

Mummra13 Sun 30-Mar-14 13:11:01

My asking why schizophrenia was not considered relevant in child care hearings makes you paranoid? I also believe that DV and learning disabilities are also relevant in child care hearings. I am merely asking why if she suffers from schizophrenia it was not important in the child care hearing. Schizophrenia is a very serious mental illness and not to be brushed off as you seem to imply.

Nennypops Sun 30-Mar-14 19:32:33

Sorry, I never mentioned paranoia, nor did I imply anything about schizophrenia. Still not playing.

Mummra13 Sun 30-Mar-14 22:45:58

"You really do come over as uncannily like you did last time the last poster who was desperate to discuss this case. Sorry, I'm not playing."

From www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paranoia
2. A tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others.

All you had to say was you do not know the answer to my question. I didn't expext anyone to have the definitive answer, I was merely stating my thoughts before you started accussing me of being... someone? You never did elaborate on that. I just want you to know its okay, I don't know what your experiances on this forum have been, and as such I can not blame you for your views on me however misplaced they are.

AnywhereOverTheRainbow Mon 31-Mar-14 10:59:19

Sorry but the link posted by the OP.... goes directly to the homepage of The Independent....

Are we supposed to browse the whole Independent website to find the article you are referring to?

Nennypops Mon 31-Mar-14 14:53:45

Mummra, if you're not simply the latest in a long line of people with strangely similar posting styles and an obsession with the Pacchieri case who suddenly pop up out of nowhere, fine. I will simply point out that there have been four long, long threads on that case and various others where it has been mentioned, so I suggest you go away and read those before trying to reopen the issue.

I am however fascinated at your long distance diagnosis of my mental health in light of your posts so far.

Mummra13 Mon 31-Mar-14 16:46:02
Mummra13 Mon 31-Mar-14 16:52:28

@Nenny

I gave my breif thoughts on the matter, then you proceeded to accuse me of beign some internet boogeyman without any knowledge of me. If that is not being paranoid I don't know what is. While you may be naive in your belief that the NHS is perfect there is plenty of examples of critical failures, some are even highlighted in the MCA report. Pretending problems do not exist or ignoring mistakes only leads to more problems.

Nennypops Mon 31-Mar-14 21:13:55

Mummra, you are now actually making up something you fondly imagine I have said. As you seem to be having a discussion in your head I suggest you go and do it elsewhere.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now