Girl sectioned after psychiatrist ruled out abortion

nozzferrahhtoo · 13-06-2017 02:13PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't see how knowing the details of this particular case would give people any greater understanding of mental health in general.

That is because you are viewing it from the perspective of someone who knows, or at least thinks they know, about mental health in general.

Whereas the people who are writing posts like mine are putting themselves in the perspective of a girl (yea I know you get aggressive and haughty when people claim to be able to put themselves or imagine themselves in a position they never actually directly experienced, but don't trigger yourself over it this time if you please.) who finds themselves pregnant and suicidal and she is wondering what she can or should do about it. And she might not have the privilege of the knowledge of that area of the health sector that you and I have.

I do not think it a wild leap of expectation to think there are going to be some girls out there suicidal and pregnant who will think, having heard this story in the media........... or second hand from someone who heard it......... "If I show up telling them my story, am I could to be sectioned?".

So I can think of good reasons why people like eviltwin might want to have it clarified how someone could show up under the impression they are about to be offered an abortion, to find something VERY different waiting for them instead. And thus far I can think of no reason, and none are in your posts, as to why we should NOT have clarification on how such a thing can or did or might have occurred.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There are already plenty of resources available through many channels if people actually wanted to inform themselves about mental health.

And there is your privilege again. A lot of people do not have the means, the education, the pre-requisite knowledge or any of the other circumstances you and I have to know how to find, interpret or understand much of what is out there. Many people simply are not as educated as you and I. Let alone young school girls and the like.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That entire paragraph is merely your own invention based upon speculation. I see no need to entertain it tbh.

Same MO as usual then of dismissing what you can not respond to by merely labeling it with terms like "nonsense" and "waffle" and so forth before running away. Almost every post now today, that has to be a record. Though it is amusing how often you feel the need to respond in order to inform people you will not respond

That has to fall under the definition of a compulsion at this stage.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The report already goes as far as it can without stepping over other moral boundaries like patient confidentiality

Then where is the answer to evil twins question as I see nothing about answering that question that requires any such confidentiality be infringed. It is a simple question. How can it come to pass that these people could be invited to show up, and they could do so under the impression they were going for an abortion?

Was it their own mistake and misunderstanding? Were they misled? Something else? Maybe, for example, WE are the ones being misled and they did not show up with any expectation of the sort at all. The news paper merely tells us they did. I do not know. You clearly do not know. But the questions are certainly valid to ask.

I see nothing PER SE about the question that can not be answered without impinging on any other moral ground.

PERHAPS the actual answer IS indeed one that can not be given without impinging on their privacy. But you appear to be merely assuming this to be the case, whereas I would only go as far as assuming it to be a possibility.

One eyed Jack · 13-06-2017 02:20PM

eviltwin wrote: »

It's created a lot of fear and worry. No one is looking for identifying information just a bit of reassurance as to how the miscommunication occurred. It would certainly make me think twice about seeking an abortion here especially if I was a vulnerable person.

You can thank the Irish Times for fuelling that fear and worry. I don't think any amount of reassurance would alleviate the fear and worry of anyone who was already fearful and worried that they would be sectioned if they sought an abortion in Ireland.

I just don't see how the set of circumstances in this case would have any bearing on the set of circumstances in another case, even if the same people making the decisions were involved.

For me personally, there's a hell of a lot more factors involved in advising a vulnerable woman or child experiencing a crisis pregnancy who would be seeking an abortion in Ireland than just what they expect should happen.

Zubeneschamali · 13-06-2017 02:25PM

What's the bets that when all the facts come out, the psychiatrist who sectioned the girl turns out to have "well-known pro-life views"?

This was flagged long ago as a likely problem. Here is an article from 2014 in the IT:

Where does she turn for help? Her first option is to go to her GP who would refer Kate to her local HSE psychiatrist. Psychiatry services are provided on the basis of geographical location and patients are sent to whoever provides the service in their area. Let us suppose that Kate is referred to an anti-choice psychiatrist. This is the nub of the problem. We have had a public debate in which some psychiatrists have said that abortion is never a treatment for suicidality. Prof Patricia Casey has stated that “there are no grounds for recommending abortion as a treatment to prevent suicide” and further that it is “deeply insulting” and “discriminatory” that some psychiatrists should be excluded from determining suicidality under the Act because of their “personal position on the issue”.

Zubeneschamali · 13-06-2017 02:31PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't think any amount of reassurance would alleviate the fear and worry of anyone who was already fearful and worried that they would be sectioned if they sought an abortion in Ireland.

Well of course not! A 14-year-old-girl just got locked up for doing that, you'd have to be mental to trust the authorities here.

Tell you what would help, though: repealing the 8th amendment and that stupid Act, and introducing legal abortion per the Citizens Assembly recommendations.

I'm only 52, I might live to see it.

....... · 13-06-2017 02:33PM

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo · 13-06-2017 02:34PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You can thank the Irish Times for fuelling that fear and worry. I don't think any amount of reassurance would alleviate the fear and worry of anyone who was already fearful and worried that they would be sectioned if they sought an abortion in Ireland.

Unfortunately, on top of all the things I listed above where people might simply not have the pre-requisite knowledge and education required to seek out online information in any detail............ there is also the fact that many people suffering from depression or suicidal tendencies are not always otherwise thinking coherently and cogently.

Certainly one issue we have with depressed people is their fear of judgement or detriment if they seek help. While some do not think they are worthy of help or support. The whole "Why should anyway care about me, why should I bother seeking help" attitude.

It is so easy for a mostly clear thinking and cogent person to sit behind a keyboard and say "Ah they should just log on the net and get the info!" but they may simply not be in the head space of privilege you are and be capable of it for any number of reasons.

I do not see it as fantastical to fear that some girl somewhere might be in a similar situation, hear a story like this with all the lack of clarity the questions people like eviltwin are asking wish to enlighten, and simply feel themselves scared enough by it all not to come forward for help themselves.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I just don't see how the set of circumstances in this case would have any bearing on the set of circumstances in another case, even if the same people making the decisions were involved.

You can not think for one moment that some girl somewhere, pregnant against her wishes, and suffering from depression and/or suicidal tendencies will be in ANY way influenced by a story like this one in how they choose to make their next move?

You do not think that ANYTHING About this story has ANY potential to shake their faith in the Mental Health System in Ireland such that they will choose to bypass it and rather than seek the help they may genuinely need..... seek other recourse such as hopping alone on a boat to england, going on line for dubious pills, or reaching for some equivalent of a coat hanger?

I would never have expected to find the day where I suspected you of suffering from more optimism about reality than I do, that is for sure.

....... · 13-06-2017 02:35PM

This post has been deleted.

wonderfullife · 13-06-2017 02:35PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

What's the bets that when all the facts come out, the psychiatrist who sectioned the girl turns out to have "well-known pro-life views"?

What's the bets you're pulling assumptions out of your ass to advance an agenda? Pretty safe bet.

The personal views of the treating psychologist are *irrelevant*.

Sectioning can, does and will save lives. This is a universally acknowledged fact whether someone is pregnant or not pregnant. There's appeals procedures in place for anybody sectioned, precisely for these instances where the patient disagrees with the initial clinical determination.

The system *worked* here. The girl was held, 2 psychiatrists offered dissenting opinions, she was discharged.

If the initial psychiatrist didn't detain the girl and she hung herself the same night while waiting for a ferry to England for a legal abortion, people would be saying 'surely the psychiatrist could tell she needed to be protected for a few days'.

ohnonotgmail · 13-06-2017 02:38PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

What's the bets you're pulling assumptions out of your ass to advance an agenda? Pretty safe bet.

The personal views of the treating psychologist are *irrelevant*.

Sectioning can, does and will save lives. This is a universally acknowledged fact whether someone is pregnant or not pregnant. There's appeals procedures in place for anybody sectioned, precisely for these instances where the patient disagrees with the initial clinical determination.

The system *worked* here. The girl was held, 2 psychiatrists offered dissenting opinions, she was discharged.

If the initial psychiatrist didn't detain the girl and she hung herself the same night while waiting for a ferry to England for a legal abortion, people would be saying 'surely the psychiatrist could tell she needed to be protected for a few days'.

they are relevant when they effect patients. If the system had worked she would not be sectioned in the first place.

wonderfullife · 13-06-2017 02:43PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they are relevant when they effect patients. If the system had worked she would not be sectioned in the first place.

Wrong.

A determination by the initial treating psychiatrist is critical.

If a good-faith determination was made that the girl was suffering from an acute mental health issue (psychosis, for example), then he was correct to section her.

It was also correct for her to be discharged after the 2 further opinions deemed there was no acute mental health issue.

What would you be saying right now (pregnant or not) if that initial treating psychiatrist released her and an hour later the child walked out in front of a train?

You'd be saying "how on earth did they fail this girl?".

It might seem "unfair" to you, but I'd much prefer someone is sectioned and then appeal - as opposed to not sectioned and then dead.

greencap · 13-06-2017 02:46PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

If the system had worked she would not be sectioned in the first place.

And so you'd have a suicidal kid left to her own devices.

wonderful.

ohnonotgmail · 13-06-2017 02:47PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

Wrong.

A determination by the initial treating psychiatrist is critical.

If a good-faith determination was made that the girl was suffering from an acute mental health issue (psychosis, for example), then he was correct to section her.

It was also correct for her to be discharged after the 2 further opinions deemed there was no acute mental health issue.

What would you be saying right now (pregnant or not) if that initial treating psychiatrist signed off on the abortion, released her and an hour later the child walked out in front of a train?

You'd be saying "how on earth did they fail this girl?".

It might seem "unfair" to you, but I'd much prefer someone is sectioned and then appeal - as opposed to not sectioned and then dead.

you are assuming that it was a good faith determination. a person can only be sectioned if they have a mental illness. oddly enough there was no mention of what this supposed mental illness was in the report. Almost like it didnt exist.

ohnonotgmail · 13-06-2017 02:48PM

greencap wrote: »

And so you'd have a suicidal kid left to her own devices.

wonderful.

being suicidal is not sufficient reason to be sectioned. the girl was also with her mother. she was not on her own.

One eyed Jack · 13-06-2017 02:51PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is because you are viewing it from the perspective of someone who knows, or at least thinks they know, about mental health in general.

Whereas the people who are writing posts like mine are putting themselves in the perspective of a girl (yea I know you get aggressive and haughty when people claim to be able to put themselves or imagine themselves in a position they never actually directly experienced, but don't trigger yourself over it this time if you please.) who finds themselves pregnant and suicidal and she is wondering what she can or should do about it. And she might not have the privilege of the knowledge of that area of the health sector that you and I have.

I do not think it a wild leap of expectation to think there are going to be some girls out there suicidal and pregnant who will think, having heard this story in the media........... or second hand from someone who heard it......... "If I show up telling them my story, am I could to be sectioned?".

You don't have to stretch yourself too far to think like a child, but to imagine yourself as a pregnant child whose circumstances you know nothing of, and yet you can determine that she would think like you?

Far be it for me to point out how incredibly bizarre that egocentric line of thinking is.

And there is your privilege again. A lot of people do not have the means, the education, the pre-requisite knowledge or any of the other circumstances you and I have to know how to find, interpret or understand much of what is out there. Many people simply are not as educated as you and I. Let alone young school girls and the like.

But didn't you just say I was viewing it from the perspective of someone who thinks they know about mental health in general?

That would mean that it's you appears to have all the privilege here, so privileged in fact that not only can you tell me what my perspective is, but you can also tell me from the perspective of a pregnant child what her perspective is.

Zubeneschamali · 13-06-2017 02:51PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

The personal views of the treating psychologist are *irrelevant*

Go back and read that quote from 2014. Patricia Casey, PROFESSOR of psychiatry at UCD and Consultant Psychiatrist at the Mater, states that abortion is NEVER justified under the Act by risk of suicide.

So, if the girl in this case was referred to Professor Doctor Casey, co-founder of the Iona "Institute", would she approve an abortion? Clearly not, no matter what the law says. Not for any patient under any circumstances.

The law is a joke, and women would have to be bonkers to rely on it instead of Ryanair. And the reason the law is a joke is that it is based on the 8th, which was a mistake on many levels, and should be replaced immediately.

eviltwin · 13-06-2017 02:52PM

greencap wrote: »

And so you'd have a suicidal kid left to her own devices.

wonderful.

She was refused the abortion because it was determined she wasn't suicidal. So how was she then sectioned for being suicidal.

Zubeneschamali · 13-06-2017 02:53PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

a person can only be sectioned if they have a mental illness. oddly enough there was no mention of what this supposed mental illness was in the report.

And when the court asked another psychiatrist, oh look, no illness there!

wonderfullife · 13-06-2017 02:56PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you are assuming that it was a good faith determination. a person can only be sectioned if they have a mental illness. oddly enough there was no mention of what this supposed mental illness was in the report. Almost like it didnt exist.

I'm assuming it was a good faith determination because doctors up and down this country are ethical people who strive to 'do no harm'.

Doctors often mis-diagnose people. Psychiatrists, Consultants, Surgeons, Nurses all make mistakes.

But I reject any insinuation that any of them knowingly risk the health or life of their patients based on some personal view.

The "supposed mental illness" - you obviously didn't read the report. All 3 psychiatrists, even the ones who discharged her, concurred the girl was suffering from depression.

Clinical Depression, Manic Depression etc *can be* grounds for sectioning under the Mental Health Act.

You're talking out of your hat.

wonderfullife · 13-06-2017 02:59PM

eviltwin wrote: »

She was refused the abortion because it was determined she wasn't suicidal. So how was she then sectioned for being suicidal.

Wrong.

She was refused the abortion because abortion wasn't deemed the *only* recourse/remedy as defined under the current law. You can hate the law but the application of it was correct here.

Please stop mis-representing facts. At no point did any of the psychiatrists doubt her suicidal ideation. Being suicidal isn't, in itself, a guarantor that someone should be sectioned and she was released after two subsequent opinions.

wonderfullife · 13-06-2017 03:03PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And when the court asked another psychiatrist, oh look, no illness there!

The court asked *two* psychiatrists who gave a different opinion.

You obviously have never dealt with mental health professionals yet you continue to talk absolute ****e.

In my own instance, my consultant psychiatrist was the one who made the overall diagnosis in consultation with his team. He informed me that one of his team reached a different diagnosis for me but the other members of the team gave a different opinion.

The mental illness didn't suddenly vanish. It was simply different medical opinions.

One eyed Jack · 13-06-2017 03:10PM

....... wrote: »

Do you have a source for this?

Because I think youre making it up.

It will pursue its aims and objectives by attending the courts where child care cases are heard in order to report on those proceedings while protecting the anonymity of the children and their families, in accordance with a Protocol drawn up by its Director. This will be based on a previous Protocol for reporting family law proceedings by the Courts Service. Dr Coulter directed the Courts Service Family Law Reporting Project, which published a series of reports on family law cases in the courts and a Final Report in 2007.

https://www.childlawproject.ie/about/

ohnonotgmail · 13-06-2017 03:10PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

I'm assuming it was a good faith determination because doctors up and down this country are ethical people who strive to 'do no harm'.

Doctors often mis-diagnose people. Psychiatrists, Consultants, Surgeons, Nurses all make mistakes.

But I reject any insinuation that any of them knowingly risk the health or life of their patients based on some personal view.

The "supposed mental illness" - you obviously didn't read the report. All 3 psychiatrists, even the ones who discharged her, concurred the girl was suffering from depression.

Clinical Depression, Manic Depression etc *can be* grounds for sectioning under the Mental Health Act.

You're talking out of your hat.

you are the one talking out your hat.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/involuntary-admission-procedures-for-psychiatric-hospitals-poorly-understood-1.1390466

the whole thing stinks. A psychiatrist on their own cannot decide to section somebody. Somebody has to apply to have a person sectioned. a doctor then has to recommend that they be sectioned and THEN a psychiatrist gets involved. this case seems to have skipped steps 1 and 2. and that is the process for adults. for minors the HSE have to apply to the district court to have them sectioned. there is no mention of that either. the whole thing stinks.

Zubeneschamali · 13-06-2017 03:12PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

I'm assuming it was a good faith determination because doctors up and down this country are ethical people who strive to 'do no harm'.

Again, read the quote from Casey. She is the the director of the acute psychiatric unit at the Mater, and she states flatly that there is never any justification for an abortion under the act due to a threat of suicide.

No-one referred to her is getting an abortion. Full stop.

greencap · 13-06-2017 03:12PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

being suicidal is not sufficient reason to be sectioned. the girl was also with her mother. she was not on her own.

You're focusing on just 1 isolated legal aspect.

Which would count for pretty much nothing in the case where a body is later found.

I really don't get the eagerness that this suicidal (with probable additional issues) individual should not have been temporarily restrained for their own good on the advice of a psychiatrist.

Had it been some random guy the thread would close in two posts.

1. This guy was sent to the farm by a psychiatrist.
2. oh really, well probably best, for his own good.

But no. Because theres a female involved it automatically means its a state conspiracy against women. Probably involving the church and a secret cabal of men who want to keep women down. And the VHI are in on it too.

It needs to be something that can be marched about. An excuse to rant about wider politics. Evidenced by all they shyte about the 8th.
Can't just be that a mentally ill person was temporarily restrained for their own good. That never happens.
Well ok it happens to men on occasion.

But when it happens to a female its the vatican in cahoots with the vhi.

nozzferrahhtoo · 13-06-2017 03:15PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You don't have to stretch yourself too far to think like a child, but to imagine yourself as a pregnant child whose circumstances you know nothing of, and yet you can determine that she would think like you?

Nice distortion there but no, I did not indicate I was trying to think like any particular child with circumstances I do not know. But in fact a more GENERAL state of merely being a child suffering from depression, maybe even suicidal thoughts, who finds themselves suffering from something they require help with (like an unwanted pregnancy) and being worried about what will happen when they seek it.

As I said, I know from direct citeable experience you tend to get triggered when people claim to be able to empathize with a situation they themselves have never been directly in. But many of us CAN do so, even if you can not.

Nor did I say, more of your distortions in play here, that any given child would "think like me" but I was commenting on the idea that of ALL the girls in similar situations it is not a leap to suspect some of them will end up in this head space I describe. You really do rely on your distortion approach too much.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Far be it for me to point out how incredibly bizarre that egocentric line of thinking is.

Or, more accurately, far be it from YOU to actually lend substance to the things you label things as being when it suits you to do so. As I have had to point out in pretty much EVERY reply you have offered up to me today.

So yes, far be it from you indeed. And how.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But didn't you just say I was viewing it from the perspective of someone who thinks they know about mental health in general?

I think you will find I offered it as part of an either/or construct. Why you feel it necessary to parse out ONE side of an either/or construct and offer it up as what I said, is only known to you I guess. But I would suspect you did it so you could.....

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That would mean that it's you appears to have all the privilege here, so privileged in fact that not only can you tell me what my perspective is, but you can also tell me from the perspective of a pregnant child what her perspective is.

..... ignore the things I actually said and did, in order to attack something I did not.

But the point remains regardless of your ignoring it. That it is nothing but pure privilege of someone informed and mentally healthy to assume that a pregnant and suicidally depressed child would or even COULD simply go on line and inform themselves to the degree required.

ohnonotgmail · 13-06-2017 03:16PM

greencap wrote: »

You're focusing on just 1 isolated legal aspect.

Which would count for pretty much nothing in the case where a body is later found.

I really don't get the eagerness that this suicidal (with probable additional issues) individual should not have been temporarily restrained for their own good on the advice of a psychiatrist.

Had it been some random guy the thread would close in two posts.

1. This guy was sent to the farm by a psychiatrist.
2. oh really, well probably best, for his own good.

But no. Because theres a female involved it automatically means its a state conspiracy against women. Probably involving the church and a secret cabal of men who want to keep women down. And the VHI are in on it too.

It needs to be something that can be marched about. An excuse to rant about wider politics. Evidenced by all they shyte about the 8th.

you need to look up what is involved in sectioning somebody, especially a minor. I'll give you a clue, it looks nothing like what happened here.

greencap · 13-06-2017 03:18PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you need to look up what is involved in sectioning somebody, especially a minor. I'll give you a clue, it looks nothing like what happened here.

ok then whys she sectioned.

who's behind the curtain alex?

Outlaw Pete · 13-06-2017 03:18PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Absurd logic.

In that case cot death should be considered manslaughter too should it?

nozzferrahhtoo · 13-06-2017 03:21PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Absurd logic.

In that case cot death should be considered manslaughter too should it?

Not sure that is what the person is saying at all no. I think you are distorting their position a bit there, whether intentionally or not. But if you show up with a corpse in your hands shouting "cot death" at the doctor...... do they not undergo a full check into the cause of death to ensure that no foul play or intentional nature lay behind it?

I would suggest the users point is that if abortion is murder, then at the very least the same effort should be put into miscarriages to ensure no foul play or intention was in play. But that is NOT what we do, and for very good reason. Good reason that SOME anti-choice campaigners may not want to have made explicit. Abortion is NOT murder basically.

So while it is not a point or argument I would make myself, I do not think it serves to deal with the argument in question by distorting it.

....... · 13-06-2017 03:21PM

This post has been deleted.

Girl sectioned after psychiatrist ruled out abortion

Comments