Garlic I did get some stuff done today. I have tons of document folders and I am trailing around the house, picking up bits of paper and putting them in the right folders in the garden table that is now taking up my sitting room.
I found this letter from my legal team (grandiose, but I just like saying it) to the idiot who forced me to take mind altering drugs.
Dear Dr Clot
Daisee
I represent the above named and looked after Daisee in relation to her appeal against detention when she was detained under Section 2 of the Mental Health Act. I saw Daisee this week and had a long conversation with her about her on-going detention. (NB: The lawyer did not know that I was not taking any drugs; I thought that it would put him in an awkward situation). She remains resolute in her opinion that her on-going detention in hospital is unnecessary and, as you are no doubt aware, is reluctant (RELUCTANT? BRING ON THE MARGARINE TUBS FILLED WITH RICE!) to engage in occupational therapy or, indeed any therapeutic work (jigsaws? colouring in?) which would, in her mind, impliedly vindicate the position of her clinical team.
Daisee is reluctant to appeal against her detention in Alcatraz as, in my view, I am sure that she wouldn't mind me suggesting this, she is fearful that having her detention upheld woud, again, be a vindication of the position taken by her clinical team and would undermine her view that her detention, from the outset, has been an inappropriate reaction to her presentation.
(In fact I cancelled 3 tribunals until I had all of my medical notes and was not going to risk it until I had these facts. If the tribunal had failed, which it probably would have done, due to my utter undisguised contempt for the entire fiasco, I would have been one more tribunal by Christmas 2012 and then one annually for the rest of my life. At least in prison you have a release date).
Whilst I very rarely feel that it is appropriate for me to make any comment about the clinical condition which has been taken by a patient's treating team ('treating is a euphemism for inforced drug taking; care is watching a patient do a poo) to maintain their detention, the appropriate mechanism clearly being to afford a patient the opportunity to appeal against their detention through the legitimate tribunal process, in this case I feel it is incumbent on me to raise some concerns on behalf of Daisee as to her continued detention in Alcatraz.
Having reviewed Daisee's nursing notes, having been involved in her case since her initial admission over 3 months ago and having visited her on a number of occasions (when he assured me that he thought there was nothing wrong with me at all, it seems that Daisee has made little in so far as true progress is concerned on the ward and her presentation seems very similar to that which I noted when I first met her. Daisee remains lucid, erudite and articulate and her underlying perception as to the benefit or otherwise of hospital inpatient treatment (DRUGS!) is unchanged.
Although I, of course, must accept that I may be wholly inaccurate in my perception of the present position, might I suggest that this is a case in which the therapeutic benefits (!!!!) of inpatient treatment (DRUGS) could be argued to have diminished to the point where Daisee's ongoing detention is disproportionate to either the risks that she presents or the benefits to be gained by a longer period of hospitalisation?
Again, forgive what I perceive to be an