The Scottish Parliament is seeking to make draconian amendments to its proposed changes to the Scottish Mental Health Act (2003), allowing medical and legal professions tyrannical powers to detain individuals, see details (below) of Hunter Watson’s petition. The new proposals have very serious implications for the freedom of Scottish people, the changes would make it even easier for individuals to be detained in hospital and gives far too much power to psychiatrists who can, and do, subject their patients to unnecessary treatment. The extensive abuse of powers using psychiatry continues unabated against the public, relying entirely on an ‘opinion’ leaving the individual with no recourse for redress, which completely violates their human rights! You or any member of your family could be subjected at any time to this form of abuse.
There is evidence that the NWO are seeking to extend existing powers over individuals with the use of psychiatry – a ‘fake science.’ For centuries used as a clandestine tool to silence those who pose a threat, subjecting them to inhumane and barbaric treatment leaving them with a label of being mentally ill thus stigmatising their character, undermining their wellbeing, integrity and judgement. Unless the Scottish Petitions Committee can see its way to making the necessary critical changes to the Mental Health Act, tyranny will continue to be enacted with impunity. Thereby setting the scene for such powers to eventually extend to the rest of the UK., we urge everyone to become informed of this real and insidious proposal which threatens all freedom. Help to keep alive the flame ignited by Hunter Watson’s petition, in Scotland. Unfortunately, few people have known about Hunter’s petition against the proposed changes, which began last November 2013. Sadly this is his last campaign. Can someone else take up Hunter’s torch and begin a new campaign? The public needs to wake up before it is too late.
The meeting will take place tomorrow, Tuesday March 4th, in Edinburgh at the Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh, EH99 1SP, in Committe Room 3. To book your seat telephone 0131 348 5200. Members of the public will only be allowed to observe.
Details of submissons and Petition:
Consultation and draft proposal:
“The three proposals would appear to effectively permit the complete removal (at the discretion of the Sectioners) of the right of appeal from any patient who is unable to coherently and vigorously specify and insist on their own rights. As most are forced to take drugs before their first Tribunal, this could be the vast majority of patients.”
On Tuesday 4 March the Public Petitions Committee will again consider my petition, PE01494, which calls for Scottish mental health legislation to be amended so that it becomes compatible with human rights. The Scottish Government has refused to make the necessary amendments. However, if you read the submissions made to the Petitions Committee you will almost certainly agree that fundamental changes to the 2003 Mental Health Act are required in order to reduce the incidence of individuals being wrongly subjected to compulsory treatment which will invariably be unpleasant and can harm the patients and even cause some to die prematurely. The fact is that the 2003 Act makes it far too easy for individuals to be detained in hospital and gives too much power to psychiatrists who can, and do, subject their patients to unnecessary treatment. They also do not always follow prescribing guidelines, something that no doubt accounts for some of the deaths that occur while patients are being “treated” against their will.
One of the many unsatisfactory features of the 2003 Act is that it permits psychiatrists to begin to treat patients against their will before they have a chance to appeal against their detention. Another unsatisfactory feature is that the composition of mental health tribunals is such that patients cannot be guaranteed a fair hearing. It seems that those tribunals accept without question whatever they are told by the responsible medical officer and ignore contrary evidence provided by the patient and the supporters of the patient. The Scottish Government denies that this is the case but in so doing it is ignoring the evidence. The result is that often the patient’s appeal fails when it should not. That not only makes life a misery for the patient and the family of the patient, but it also means that the expenditure on mental health is much greater than it should be.
I understand that it is proposed that my petition will be closed on Tuesday and that the issues raised will not be referred to the Health Committee as I had hoped. There is currently consultation on a Mental Health Bill but that bill does not include the matters raised in the petition. If the media does not take an interest, then Scotland will remain a country where it is far too easy for an individual to be deprived of his or her rights to liberty and to freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment. I hope that you will be prepared to have a look at the submissions made to PE01494 and to comment on them before the Petitions Committee considers them. Even though there is a proposal to close the petition that does not necessarily mean that it will be closed on Tuesday. To get into the petition website and hence read the submissions simply Google PE01494. I would welcome your support.
by Hunter Watson
The consultation on the new Mental Health bill referred to contains proposals from the Scottish Government that appear aimed at drastically weakening the patient’s right of appeal.
In Paragraph II they suggest
1) removing the right of the Named Person to be involved in Tribunals (that will be up to the Trubunals), and also
2) removing the right of the Named Person to see papers relating to the evidence even at the patient’s behest. And
3) in Paragraph 13 they express a wish to allow MHO’s to indicate to Tribunals who the Named Person should be.
These three proposals would appear to effectively permit the complete removal (at the discretion of the Sectioners) of the right of appeal from any patient who is unable to coherently and vigorously specify and insist on their own rights. As most are forced to take drugs before their first Tribunal, this could be the vast majority of patients.
The MHO can suggest a ‘Named Person’ to the Tribunal who they think is agreeable to the section, and the Tribunal can agree that the MHO is ‘best placed’ to judge. Should a Named Person be appointed that the MHO or the Tribunals believe might actually fight for the patients’ rights, they will no longer have to cook up a story about them being unsuitable, as the Named Person will apparently require permission to represent the patient at Tribunals. And if all else fails, they Named Person can be rendered unable to help the patient refute the evidence, by denying them permission to see the evidence even at the patient’s behest. Often it is the Named Person that is in possession of the background to the claims of the RMO and MHO – which are often embroidered, as the submissions from or don behalf of ACTUAL VICTIMS show
If all else fails, strong appeal cases (or those where there have been blatant breaches of the legislation or the guidelines) can simply be ‘vetoed’ by denying permission.
Oddly enough, each of these three proposals specifically addresses a ‘problem’ that arose for the mental health authorities in a case in which I was Named Person challenging the detention of ad patient; problems that were resolved by means that were not legitimate.
The proposals seems to be aimed at making the denial of the patient’s human rights appear to be legitimate.
The Marketing of Madness exposes the real insanity in our psychiatric ‘health care’ system: profit-driven drug marketing at the expense of human rights.
“Under the cover story, it was all fraud all the time. Without much of a stretch, you could say psychiatry has been the most inept and widespread profiling operation in the history of the human race. Its goal has been to bring humans everywhere into its system. It hardly matters which label a person is painted with, as long as it adds up to a diagnosis and a prescription of drugs.
Fake science comes in many forms. Psychiatry is one of the most egregious forms ever invented.”
Petition PE01494 (submitted to the Petitions Committeee 4.3.2014)
Note of Concern – a hundred complaints about the Mental Health system
Dear Mr Howlett
Ahead of tomorrows petition hearing, it is an ongoing concern that
1) not all submissions have been put up on the website despite having being anonymized, and
2) committee members may be misled by the clerk’s suggested advice of ignoring the petitioners and instead accepting the ‘broad agreement’ of the ‘organisations’ (indeed four expressed opposition). The organisations sharing ‘broad agreement’ are those who between them share legal, political, and moral responsibility for the human rights violations committed by the system and under its protection.
There appear to be about a hundred complaints contained within the submissions.
We wish to draw attention to the following summary of complaints (obtained by simple scrutiny), which we request be seen by the committee members in response to the clerk’s advice:
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINTS SUBMITTED
All cases: patients wishes not taken into account, completely ignored Almost all: family wishes completely ignored Almost all: patients drugged almost immediately
There were multiple occurrences of the following complaints:
Misleading evidence given to Tribunals (at least 10 complaints)
Tribunal ignoring or dismissing contrary evidence (at least 10 complaints)
Tribunal accepting innuendo (7)
Breaking the main provisions of the Act Apparent errors in law and/or tricks to overcome legitimate challenges Mental Health Act Criteria challenged but not tested
False claims made to Tribunals
The following were all reported at least twice:
Preventing witnesses appearing for patient and named person Tribunal documents not produced Denial of symptoms of medication Reason for section not given, or not admitted Medical reports favourable to patient suppressed Diagnosis later contradicted
There are other extremely serious complaints, like one patient never being examined before being sectioned, yet being unable to get redress afterwards.
We respectfully feel that the committee should be aware that such complaints are detailed in the submissions.
Walter Buchanan Claire Muir