Please watch the Dr Phil show on CBS today, 3/17/14 (3 PM Central) and share this with others. Also go to the Free Justina website or Facebook page and sign/share available petitions related to her release, and return to her parents custody: ...Justina’s case has focused a great deal of attention on these matters generally. One of the points that has emerged fairly clearly is that BCH’s (Boston Childrens Hospital) procedure for pursuing a commitment of this kind is a well-oiled machine. The BCH physicians and staff on the one hand, and the DCF (Dept. of Children and Families) staff on the other, work closely to prepare their cases, and the courts are usually cooperative. Psychiatric evidence is afforded a high measure of credibility and deference, and, as in this case, the child is routinely ordered to remain at BCH. The problem with all of this is that BCH stands to make a great deal of money on every child that is court-ordered to remain in their care. The conflict of interest is glaring. It’s like a judge routinely sending convicted criminals to a private prison that he himself happens to own. The difference is that any judge who engaged in activity of this sort would be looking at criminal charges and disbarment. But in psychiatry, this sort of thing is common.... ...None of Justina’s story would have come to light had there not been an extensive and vigorous public outcry. This in turn would not have happened if Justina’s father, Lou, had not breached the court’s gag order. The fact that our courts can effectively prohibit a parent, on pain of imprisonment, from speaking out against his child’s enforced psychiatric treatment ought to be a huge concern. Our legislative and legal systems have been hoodwinked by psychiatry for too long. The right to free speech is our most fundamental political freedom. ... ...There had never been the slightest indication that Justina’s parents had been abusing or neglecting her. In fact, they brought her to BCH on the advice of the child’s physician to get help for the flu-like symptoms. By any conventional standards, they were being dutiful and attendant. The gag order was clearly an attempt to prevent them from drawing adverse publicity to BCH’s psychiatry department. Courts are supposed to be impartial. Why would the court in this case have assumed that the psychiatry department’s motives were benign, that its diagnoses were valid and accurate, and that its practices were judicious and efficacious? Why did the court not recognize the financial conflict of interest ... ...Psychiatry seldom engages in anything even remotely akin to critical self-scrutiny. They have resisted the parents’ protests at every step of the way, and have been backed throughout by the court.... ... Let us all, individually and collectively, do what we can to ensure that this does not happen.-from the article - madinamerica/2014/03/discussion-justina-pelletier-boston-childrens-hospital/
Posted on: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:42:47 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015