Girl sectioned after psychiatrist ruled out abortion

wonderfullife · 13-06-2017 03:22PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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.

2.28 Between the making of an application for an order under Section 25 of the Act and its determination by the District Court, the District Court may give such directions as it sees fit as to the care and custody of the child. Any such direction shall cease to have effect once the application has been determined [Section 25(8)].

You've no idea (and either do I) of the specifics here but they can have the girl detained temporarily even before Section 25 detention is approved by the Court.

One eyed Jack · 13-06-2017 03:24PM

....... wrote: »

That is not a source for what you said.

You said that the details were not released to protect the patient anonymity - thats what I want to see a source on.

That's where the Irish Times got their article from!

ohnonotgmail · 13-06-2017 03:24PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

2.28 Between the making of an application for an order under Section 25 of the Act and its determination by the District Court, the District Court may give such directions as it sees fit as to the care and custody of the child. Any such direction shall cease to have effect once the application has been determined [Section 25(8)].

You've no idea (and either do I) of the specifics here but they can have the girl detained temporarily even before Section 25 detention is approved by the Court.

the HSE have to make that application. there is no mention of any such application. there is also no mention of the district court ordering her to be detained. it was the psychiatrist who made that decision.

wonderfullife · 13-06-2017 03:28PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the HSE have to make that application. there is no mention of any such application.

"An Order detaining a pregnant child under Section 25 of the Mental Health Act 2001 was discharged by a District Court judge on the grounds that the child no longer had a mental health disorder in accordance with section 3 of the Mental Health Act."

Umm. Try reading it again.

The District Court already granted the order. Clearly the HSE made the application because it *was granted*. It must have been granted for it to be discharged.

Zubeneschamali · 13-06-2017 03:30PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

2.28 Between the making of an application for an order under Section 25 of the Act and its determination by the District Court, the District Court may give such directions as it sees fit as to the care and custody of the child.

Absolutely terrifying to think that a pro-life psychiatrist and a District Justice who spends his days handing out speeding fines have this power between them.

gctest50 · 13-06-2017 03:35PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Absolutely terrifying to think that a pro-life psychiatrist and a District Justice who spends his days handing out speeding fines have this power between them.

There's filthy anti-choicers embedded in all sorts of places

Their work/care tainted.

They're like the Jimmy Savilles of this generation - deeply embedded and all the smiles and the "we're doing good work"

....... · 13-06-2017 03:39PM

This post has been deleted.

....... · 13-06-2017 03:40PM

This post has been deleted.

wonderfullife · 13-06-2017 03:40PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Absolutely terrifying to think that a pro-life psychiatrist and a District Justice who spends his days handing out speeding fines have this power between them.

Absolutely terrifying that you'd rather young children, girls or boys, to risk hanging themselves rather than be incorrectly detained for a few days.

You're trying to twist this into some BS pro-choice argument with nefarious anti-choice doctors inventing mental illnesses, risking their license and freedom.

Unreal. What *likely happened* here is this child presented in a traumatised state and the initial psychiatrist made a diagnosis of an acute mental illness.

The girl was then assessed by other psychiatrists who agreed with the initial diagnosis of depression but disagreed on the acute mental illness.

She was then discharged.

I would *hope* that the same mistake was made even if the initial psychiatrist approved legal abortion. I would hope if a young girl was at a high risk of suicide in the coming hours, that someone would protect her for a day or 2.

You seem to just want all psychiatrists in Ireland and the UK to grant abortions in all circumstances. Sorry but that doesn't even happen in the UK. The law states abortion must be the less harmful to the physical and mental health of the pregnant girl.

In very rare cases, doctors will conclude that abortion is more harmful to the physical and mental health and deny a legal abortion.

nozzferrahhtoo · 13-06-2017 03:40PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

"An Order detaining a pregnant child under Section 25 of the Mental Health Act 2001 was discharged by a District Court judge on the grounds that the child no longer had a mental health disorder in accordance with section 3 of the Mental Health Act."

I am loving the wording there, even if I read nothing much into it. The child "no longer had a mental health disorder in accordance with the act".

Where did it go then

Did she never have one (the wording seems to imply she once did, rather than she was once THOUGHT to have had)? Did she have one but it was treated and cured remarkably quickly? Was there a spontaneous remission?

greencap · 13-06-2017 03:42PM

gctest50 wrote: »

There's filthy anti-choicers embedded in all sorts of places

Their work/care tainted.

They're like the Jimmy Savilles of this generation - deeply embedded and all the smiles and the "we're doing good work"

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

lol ffs.

One eyed Jack · 13-06-2017 03:49PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am loving the wording there, even if I read nothing much into it. The child "no longer had a mental health disorder in accordance with Section 3 of the act".

Where did it go then Did she never have one (the wording seems to imply she once did, rather than she was once THOUGHT to have had)? Did she have one but it was treated and cured remarkably quickly? Was there a spontaneous remission?

You appeared to have left out the bit in bold.

nozzferrahhtoo · 13-06-2017 03:51PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You appeared to have left out the bit in bold.

Nope not really, the question is still the same as it relates to the wording "no longer". The wording suggests therefore she HAD an issue in relation to the act but now does not?

As I said I am not reading much into the wording, I just found it amusing.

But if you have a point there, you appear to have forgotten to actually make it.

wonderfullife · 13-06-2017 03:58PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Where did it go then Did she never have one (the wording seems to imply she once did, rather than she was once THOUGHT to have had)? Did she have one but it was treated and cured remarkably quickly? Was there a spontaneous remission?

Another *know-it-all* who clearly has had zero dealings with mental health professionals.

Mis-diagnosis is extremely common. For example, you can be diagnosed with the flu and on subsequent examination be suffering from pneumonia. Another example, you can be diagnosed with bipolar and on subsequent examination be diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder or schizophrenia. Another common one is initially diagnosing a heart attack and it subsequently being diagnosed as pleurisy.

The initial diagnosis doesn't "go anywhere", "get cured", "spontaneously remiss" or any of the other childish comments you made.

What happens is the original diagnosis is amended.

I wouldn't want you or your sarcasm anywhere near a hospital, thankfully it isn't. What I'd want are professionals who make good faith diagnosis and further examinations to confirm or amend that diagnosis.

nozzferrahhtoo · 13-06-2017 04:06PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

Another *know-it-all* who clearly has had zero dealings with mental health professionals.

Oh pull your neck in and stop LOOKING to be triggered. I VERY clearly said I was not reading anything into it and ONLY that I personally found it amusing. Nothing more. Get over yourself, seriously.

Also you would do well not to assume what my level of knowledge is in that particular field. You would, I assure you, be wrong.

wonderfullife wrote: »

Mis-diagnosis is extremely common.

Yes. I know. That is EXACTLY why I found it humorous. The wording pre-supposes no such thing when parsed in vernacular speech and it just tickled my humor centre. It is not that the diagnosis was wrong and she never had a condition. She NO LONGER has the condition, on one reading of the wording. I am not implying I thought that the CORRECT reading of it, just a fun one. But no amount of disclaimers in that post, it seems, will stop someone getting triggered when they really really WANT to be triggered I guess.

As I said before you decided to get triggered by nothing, I READ or imply NOTHING into it. It just tickled me is all. So chillax before you strain something or end up in one of those news paper articles that ends with something like "before turning the gun on himself".

For example if someone is diagnosed as having X and later found not to have X but to have Y instead, I would not describe them as someone who "no longer has X" because they NEVER HAD X in the first place. So the wording as it stood merely tickled me comically a bit and it seems my sense of humor has sent you into all kinda of haughty ructions of displeasure, to the point of making personal extrapolations from it that simply do not carry or, as I said, actually hold true.

wonderfullife wrote: »

I wouldn't want you or your sarcasm anywhere near a hospital, thankfully it isn't.

Again you would not want to make assumptions about who or what I am, when you know pretty much nothing about me, and are once again simply wrong. But AGAIN I was merely pointing to a comical way the wording can be read and that it tickled me a bit. It was a light hearted comment containing NO POINT in an otherwise all too serious thread. You have taken that and got triggered by it for no good reason at all, and now you are even reducing yourself to getting personal and insulting (and, again, wrong) about it.

Deep breaths dude, not EVERY response on a forum is a personal affront or an attack on you and yours. Sometimes people just try to find a light hearted moment in an otherwise stressed out context.

Zubeneschamali · 13-06-2017 04:10PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

What *likely happened* here is this child presented in a traumatised state and the initial psychiatrist made a diagnosis of an acute mental illness.

Perhaps you would like to share the mathematics behind your estimate of the probabilities?

the headbanger · 13-06-2017 04:13PM

....... wrote: »

Mother Teresa syndrome. They enjoy the suffering of others and paint themselves as saintly and caring. Its sick.

Better than being a cold calculating killer. Not much between the pro murder camp and Myra Hindley

Mod: banned

....... · 13-06-2017 04:15PM

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali · 13-06-2017 04:15PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

Mis-diagnosis is extremely common. For example, you can be diagnosed with the flu and on subsequent examination be suffering from pneumonia.

Worst example of "misdiagnosis" ever.

greencap · 13-06-2017 04:16PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Perhaps you would like to share the mathematics behind your estimate of the probabilities?

Number of recorded correct diagnosis of mental illness throughout the country in the last year = Ill go with an ever so slightly conservative '5'.

Number of psychiatrists recorded as locking up people for the craic or for personal political reasons in the last year = 0.

nozzferrahhtoo · 13-06-2017 04:19PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

He failed to get a response after 21 minutes with his first post, then he escalated with a reply TO HIMSELF to try and get one. And now he is just escalating again because he could not get one then either.

Probably best not to give him what he is clearly looking for.

greencap · 13-06-2017 04:21PM

I'd section the lot of ye.

unfollow.

One eyed Jack · 13-06-2017 04:23PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nope not really, the question is still the same as it relates to the wording "no longer". The wording suggests therefore she HAD an issue in relation to the act but now does not?

As I said I am not reading much into the wording, I just found it amusing.

But if you have a point there, you appear to have forgotten to actually make it.

And what's so amusing about that?

You appeared to have misread the quote, leaving out the most relevant part under which the Judges decision was made.

Perhaps you had a point about peoples poor understanding of mental health in this country, but I'd respectfully suggest you start with your own lack of understanding before you go putting yourself in anyone else's shoes.

nozzferrahhtoo · 13-06-2017 04:27PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And what's so amusing about that?

You appeared to have misread the quote, leaving out the most relevant part under which the Judges decision was made.

Not at all. I explained what part was relevant to my point, and I explained it AGAIN in some length to the other user above. If you still do not get it, I can not really help you other than to repeat what I said. I did not leave anything relevant out for the comment I was making.

AGAIN I am not reading much into it, and AGAIN I know what the intention of the statement is and what it actually means.

But AGAIN if you merely read it straight out in the vernacular it parses in a way that I personally found amusing. If you do not, then so what? Our sense of humor differs? Shock horror. You'll live.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Perhaps you had a point about peoples poor understanding of mental health in this country, but I'd respectfully suggest you start with your own lack of understanding before you go putting yourself in anyone else's shoes.

Yet you have failed AT ALL to demonstrate any lack of understanding of ANYTHING on my part. Just because I CAN read a statement one way is no implication AT ALL that I can not ALSO read it as it was INTENDED.

You are basically so unable to rebut a SINGLE point I have made on the thread today, that you seem determined to manufacture something not there to attack me for instead.

AGAIN without reading anything into the statement I was merely amused at how it CAN ALSO be read and I found the wording a little funny for that reason. And from this you and your cohort have decided to extrapolate all kinda of fantastical nonsense about what I do, or do not, understand about the topic. Your desperation is showing, seriously.

But as I said you add a disclaimer and smileys and everything else to make it clear you have moved from serious mode into "having a joke around" mode...... and that is not going to matter one IOTA to someone who is contriving to be triggered, or contriving to find you wrong SOMEWHERE even when you are saying nothing substantial at all. Are you so desperate to finally rebut SOMETHING I have written that you have to take humor as a serious point in order to attack SOMETHING? You were doing better when you simply screeched words like "waffle" and ran for the hills.

Or is it just that you thought if you replied with this nonsense, it would paper mache over the fact you have wholesale dodged and ignored my last post to you. That is an MO you have employed in the past..... where you dodge a post directly to you by skipping over it and replying to one I have written to someone else instead.

koumi · 13-06-2017 04:28PM

greencap wrote: »

I'd section the lot of ye.

unfollow.

good man

wonderfullife · 13-06-2017 04:31PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Deep breaths dude, not EVERY response on a forum is a personal affront or an attack on you and yours. Sometimes people just try to find a light hearted moment in an otherwise stressed out context.

People who use the terms "triggered", "snowflake" and/or "safe space" shouldn't be allowed to write on the internet. I'd also revoke their voting privileges if I could.

How about that for light-hearted

gctest50 · 13-06-2017 04:31PM

greencap wrote: »

Number of recorded correct diagnosis of mental illness throughout the country in the last year = Ill go with an ever so slightly conservative '5'.

Number of psychiatrists recorded as locking up people for the craic or for personal political reasons in the last year = 0.

there is this though :

The 113 psychiatrists ( out of 302 contacted ) have signed a statement saying that legislation, which would allow for abortion as a treatment for threat of suicide, has no basis in medical evidence.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/more-than-100-psychiatrists-disagree-with-abortion-proposal-29222046.html

.

sorry didn't see the wishywashy ragequit

greencap wrote: »

unfollow.

One eyed Jack · 13-06-2017 04:34PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not at all. I explained what part was relevant to my point, and I explained it AGAIN in some length to the other user above. If you still do not get it, I can not really help you other than to repeat what I said. I did not leave anything relevant out for the comment I was making.

AGAIN I am not reading much into it, and AGAIN I know what the intention of the statement is and what it actually means.

But AGAIN if you merely read it straight out in the vernacular it parses in a way that I personally found amusing. If you do not, then so what? Our sense of humor differs? Shock horror. You'll live.

Yet you have failed AT ALL to demonstrate any lack of understanding of ANYTHING on my part. Just because I CAN read a statement one way is no implication AT ALL that I can not ALSO read it as it was INTENDED.

You are basically so unable to rebut a SINGLE point I have made on the thread today, that you seem determined to manufacture something not there to attack me for instead.

AGAIN without reading anything into the statement I was merely amused at how it CAN ALSO be read and I found the wording a little funny for that reason. And from this you and your cohort have decided to extrapolate all kinda of fantastical nonsense about what I do, or do not, understand about the topic. Your desperation is showing, seriously.

But as I said you add a disclaimer and smileys and everything else to make it clear you have moved from serious mode into "having a joke around" mode...... and that is not going to matter one IOTA to someone who is contriving to be triggered.

Duuude, seriously? :pac:

(You're gonna wreck that CAPS key btw!)

nozzferrahhtoo · 13-06-2017 04:35PM

gctest50 wrote: »

there is this though :

They also appear to have complained that they find the system unworkable and unfair to them. It is asking them to make calls that they feel they are not trained to, and should not be expected to, make.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/protection-of-life-during-pregnancy-act-is-unworkable-1.3117350

They certainly have my sympathy.

Zubeneschamali · 13-06-2017 04:39PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

They also appear to have complained that they find the system unworkable and unfair to them. It is asking them to make calls that they feel they are not trained to, and should not be expected to, make.

Casey, on the other hand, said that it would be discriminatory if psychiatrists like her who are pro-life and do not believe in abortion for suicidal pregnant women (as provided for in law and the Constitution) are NOT allowed to decide if suicidal pregnant women can have abortions, even though the answer will always be "No - take three Hail Marys and an Our Father instead".

Girl sectioned after psychiatrist ruled out abortion

Comments