We live in interesting times

www.madprideireland.ie

Change is on the way.

 www. Delete 59b.com, of the mental health act 2001 of Ireland (to stop the use of involuntary ECT) is gaining significant ground, already compromise is on offer, section 59b states if the patient is “unable or unwilling” then two psychiatrists can sign a form and force you take ECT against your will.

 We have been to Lienster House over the last few weeks, debating.

 The college of psychiatry agreed yesterday that it is time to remove “unwilling”.

 There were calls for a full independent review of the whole mental health act.

 Calls, for the new capacity legislation to come into place!

 To ratify the UN Convention on the rights of the Disabled!

 Advanced directives( a type of living will)

 All necessary.

 All sounds great, but they just do not get the point, it is not enough.

 We are told we should be grateful for progress; but this is about human rights not some treatment or other.

 This is about equality, our right as members  of the mad community to stand tall as equal citizens. The common law is there to protect us, but rather then protect us we are excluded from that same common law.

 They offer crumbs we want to share the meal.

 Stigma and abuse will always exist as long as we empower one section of our community to force treatment of any kind on another.

 The recent Murphy and Ryan reports confirm this.

 The college of Psychiatry tried to divert the debate yesterday and they focused in on the benefits of ECT.

 Delete 59b will not affect anybody’s right, to choose with free and informed consent to have ECT.

 It is so important that you understand this fact.

 We believe in choice, that is your right, we do not believe that you should be forced to take ECT by force, and on the signature of two psychiatrists and that alone. No need to consult with family, or anybody else, and its legal.

 Fear again set the tone of the opposition, irrational fear of us, in the public arena, as justification for the abuse.

 It was interesting yesterday to see some facts begin to emerge in this debate. You are very un-lightly to have ECT on offer in public hospitals, yet it seems to be big business in the private sector of psychiatry.

 That factor alone surely deserves an independent investigation, the private sector of psychiatry in so much more enthusiastic in its use of ECT, as against those psychiatrists who work in the public sector. Why? You guess, I won’t speculate here.

 I will state that when I was a patient in a private hospital I was offered ECT as a last resort, as my psychiatrist explained,

“ you are going home next week John, the pills are not working and your VHI is running out, I would like to try a few doses of ECT”.

  My wife put a stop to that thank God, I had no idea at that time of what had just been proposed I was so drugged up!

 When the Neary case came before the courts, the judge reached a guilty verdict, because Dr Neary’s threshold of use of his surgical procedure was too high in comparison to his colleagues.

 This pattern is emerging now in psychiatry, across the country. We need to know the truth here, and not some peer review.

 It was both sad and upsetting to hear myself as a person who lives with the normality of madness in my life, who now recognises the great gifts that deep emotional feelings bring to my life, being referred to over and over again by those who should know better, those who purport to speak for us, as VUNERABLE members of the community.

 How can we expect to hold our heads high as equal citizens when those who “support” us believe we are not capable of walking with dignity and equality in our own communities?

 I would call for a complete ban on the use of that overwhelming, paternalistic, insulting description of my community, those gifted with deep feelings, open to insult, we who give society art, poetry, literature, beauty:

 “as those VUNERABLE people who live among us, and society has a DUTY to protect THEM”, they are insulting me to my face, when they our supporters speak thus to my position in reference to the  law. Where I am defined in article 3 of the 2001 mental health act as follows….

“3 (1) in this Act “mental disorder” means mental illness, severe dementia, or significant intellectual disability where…”

How can I as someone, a successful business man, who had a breakdown and on a temporary basis, simply lost control of my emotional feelings, expect equal treatment under the law when my capacity under that same law is accessed on the basis I exist in the same legal space as a person with intellectual disability!

It is time to talk of mental health not “mental illness”.

Those same spokespeople “supporters” will stand on another platform next week and rail on at the need to reduce stigma, in policy!!

Society has a duty to protect all its citizens equally, we ask for no more than that.

Either that or those who in their hearts do not believe we are capable of standing with pride in our own place should walk a    way from this debate.

It is most encouraging speaking on an ongoing basis to the college of psychiatry at least we both know where we stand.

There is certain honesty to their arrogance, simply put; we need to dismantle their power, granted under the law, we need to do it in cooperation with them, together, for the good and benefit of psychiatry, and all our lives.

 It is as simple, and as complicated as that.

Sometimes you can be more damaged by your supporters then those opposed in this type of debate.

There were representatives for all parties in the house in attendance; interesting questions were raised.

Finally it would be most remiss of me not tell you of the vital role being played in this debate by Senator Dan Boyle.

But more importantly Minister John Moloney, it is vital in the non political sense that this man, (not politician) stay in his position for the next two years.

 We are grateful to you minister and we thank you from our hearts.

Advertisement