kunst nugget wrote: » Does an expert become an 'expert' when you disagree with what they're saying?
Stuckforcash wrote: » I'm not really interested in sides and point scoring in the face of such a tragic event.
Dial Hard wrote: » I think it's probably as sound an opinion as that of a doctor who never treated or even met the man and was diagnosing after the fact based on actions that almost anyone would find it impossible to comprehend.
Dial Hard wrote: » You seem determined to treat Kennedy's diagnosis as absolutely infallible. I think it's perfectly understandable to question its validity. We can agree to disagree but you do seem to want to shout down anyone who doesn't take it as gospel.
Paddy Cow wrote: » Murdering your wife and children is reprehensible behaviour. People discussing that situation is not. It's perfectly understandable that people are trying to make sense of this. If one of my brothers murdered his family I know fine well that the neighbours goldfish would be talking about it. Which is exactly why I wouldn't be on the internet reading other people's opinions on the matter.
Dial Hard wrote: » I think it's probably as sound an opinion as that of a doctor who never treated or even met the man and was diagnosing after the fact based on actions that almost anyone would find it impossible to comprehend. You seem determined to treat Kennedy's diagnosis as absolutely infallible. I think it's perfectly understandable to question its validity. We can agree to disagree but you do seem to want to shout down anyone who doesn't take it as gospel.
volchitsa wrote: » No, it's when they don't follow the basic rules of the domain they are supposed to be an expert in. Like diagnosing someone you've never met from third party observations, especially when those third parties had reached completely different conclusions. Would their notes even be reliable, if they were that incompetent? To me it looks obvious that the professor has decided on the basis of Hawe's actions that he must have been psychotic, and has interpreted the dossier to make it fit his belief. That isn't professional. Hence the inverted commas.
Stuckforcash wrote: » Not infallible, but certainly more likely than a GP, that isn't a psychiatrist, saying they didn't notice anything. Mental illess often goes unnoticed or is disguised. That's not evidence of anything. I hate to quote personal experience as evidence of anything, but I've had panic attacks in work and no one would ever have noticed. People kill themselves and no one ever suspected they were suffering. Too many people think mental issues should have outward symptoms.
Stuckforcash wrote: » Who came to different conclusions?
volchitsa wrote: » No, it's when they don't follow the basic rules of the domain they are supposed to be an expert in.
volchitsa wrote: » The GP and the therapist - the people whose notes supposedly supplied the evidence for the psychiatrist's differing conclusion. Which is a bit odd, to say the least. Unless the GP and the therapist are incompetent, or the psychiatrist is reinterpreting the notes using the benefit of hindsight. And all without ever meeting the "patient", which I'm told is a big no-no in psychiatry. He didn't even meet the surviving family, did he? Did he meet anyone who knew the man?
There are important differences between general and forensic psychiatry. In forensic psychiatry the psychiatrist serves a third party rather than the patient; both the patient and the psychiatrist must understand this to avoid misrepresenting the doctor's role to the patient and to enable the doctor to adequately serve the law. Psychiatric opinions that are useful for treatment may not be useful in determining whether a person can be considered responsible or competent. In forensic work the psychiatrist's role is not that of a therapist; it is that of an evaluator and an opinion giver but not a decision maker.
volchitsa wrote: » You don't plan a panic attack though. Hawe planned these killings. That's not a breakdown of mental faculties, that's a deliberate decision by someone who was in control of themselves.
kunst nugget wrote: » Okay, what are the basic rules for a forensic psychiatrist in an inquest?
Forensic psychiatry is a sub-speciality of psychiatry and is related to criminology.[1] It encompasses the interface between law and psychiatry. A forensic psychiatrist provides services – such as determination of competency to stand trial – to a court of law to facilitate the adjudicative process and provide treatment like medications and psychotherapy to criminals.
Stuckforcash wrote: » My point was that you'd be amazed how well you can hide something even in distress.Planning isn't evidence of anything. He doesn't have to be hollering gibberish in the streets to be mentally ill. He suffered from depression in his 20s and all his cousillor said was that he never indicated he would harm anyone. So there's history and he was receiving treatment again. If the recent revelation is true, coupled his depressive state and a bad personality it could be how we ended up here unfortunately.
volchitsa wrote: » LOL. Forensic psychiatry is not diagnosing dead people, contrary to what you appear to believe. It's about diagnosing whether criminals are fit to stand trial, or fit to be imprisoned after conviction and the like.
volchitsa wrote: » Basically, he wasn't in the grip of any delusions about aliens taking over the world or anything,he was killing them because he wanted them dead.
kunst nugget wrote: » I know what it is so less of the LOL. The fact of the matter is that his role as a forensic psychiatrist was to give his opinion on the state of mind of Alan Hawe based on the evidence before - just as it would be if he was assessing someone's competency to stand trial - he is not there to treat the person. He can't go back and time and talk to Alan Hawe himself so he has to work with the evidence presented.
Stuckforcash wrote: » Is that really what mental illness is to you?
Stuckforcash wrote: » They didn't have any conclusions. They provided evidence, the GP said he had a fungal infection and they never talked about his metal state. His therapist said he was anxious and depressed but never indicated he would kill himself or his family. You frame it as though they were disagreeing with Professor Kennedy.
Anita Blow wrote: » Depression, even severe depression, does not lead to family annihilation though so there's more to this case that is worth investigating.
volchitsa wrote: » No, that's not what people are objecting to, it's the idea that anyone, no matter how expert, can diagnose with any certainty a mental illness in hindsight and without ever meeting the person, when the people who dealt with him at the time saw nothing untoward. Whatever happened to not diagnosing a person without a proper consultation? I though that was the ABC of psychiatry? Whereas in this case, the "expert" is obviously using the fact of Hawe's actions to justify a postmortem diagnosis. IMO that's dishonest and unprofessional.
volchitsa wrote: » Yes, exactly - to all of that post and particularly to the bit I've quoted.
splinter65 wrote: » That’s not what YOU are objecting to. There are other posters on the thread dismissing mental health as a mitigating factor at all as “bull****” and others referring to their own experience of mental health as I said “I have friends with depression...” as if depression is as serious as it can get.
