the eye of Nova&#39;s mind

Come, now, that's not fair.

In context, she is saying that laws need to be firmed up so that people in danger of self-harm can get help. That's not unreasonable.

Certainly, you and I would be concerned that patient rights be a major concern as any change is contemplated, but calling her an advocate for asylum changes seems nasty and unfair, a misrepresentation of her point.

From:

I'll quote the article:

Spears was admitted to a Los Angeles hospital last month for a psychiatric evaluation. But she was allowed to leave after six days, causing her parents, Jamie and Lynn, to issue a statement saying that they were "extremely disappointed."

They said their daughter was "in the throes of a mental health crisis" and believed "her life is presently at risk."

Steel agrees. "When people aren't medicated it can be lethal," she said, adding that she hadn't realized that when dealing with her own son. "I thought it could ruin his life. I really didn't understand how high the possibility was that it could cost him his life."

Steel -- who will release her 72nd novel "Honor Thyself" on Feb. 26 -- believes the laws need to be changed to allow mentally ill people to be hospitalized against their will.

"Usually bipolars present extremely well and they can bounce into court ... look very together and be a complete mess three hours later on the streets somewhere," she said. "There's nothing you can do."

I used the same language that the article did. I don't see how I was misrepresenting her point at all.

The laws as they stand aren't just about "patient rights" but personal rights, human rights--the right to determine what can and cannot happen to your own person. If you're a danger to yourself or others, you can be hospitalized against your will. I don't see what needs to be changed.

By the same principle, it's against the law for you to be medicated against your will. By Steel's argument, if you've been assessed to have bipolar disorder, you should be forced to be medicated even if you don't want to be.

Edited Date: 2008-02-28 09:52 am (UTC)

From:

I had read the article. No, really, I had.

You used the language of the article, *except* where you claimed that Steele was an advocate for the old days of asylum- when patients had no real rights whatsoever.

In making that last claim, you went beyond the language of the article and into unfair/ inappropriate territory.

Patients are people, so patient rights are people rights, just as consumer rights are people rights and voter rights are people rights. Patient rights constitute that subset of people rights that come into focus as consumers interact with the healthcare system.

This is a difficult, emotional issue for many. It is made when more difficult when we stray from being *very* careful when representing the views of others. Steele did not say anything suggesting that she wanted patient rights dismantled, nor did she advocate for the good old days of asylum. It's wrong for you to say that she did.

It's also wrong for you to make statements about "Steele's argument". You have not read Steele's argument- you've read quotes from her in an article. Her argument may be draconian and boneheaded, or it may be sensible and fair. We don't really have any way of knowing from the information presented thus far.

From:

danielle steele believes that people with mental illness should have no rights, they can be put away at the slightest pretext. Now of course this is dumb. Our history is full of con men who put away their wives or fathers or whoever, and once they are in the mental hospital they take their fortunes. So this is really stupid.

The reason Danielle steele believes that the mentally ill should have no rights is that she blames herself for her son's death at 19, someone with bipolar. Actually she tries desparately not to blame herself and that's the problem. She blames the law for not allowing her to put nick into a mental hospital. She blames the law for allowing him to go out in the world, get addicted to heroin and commit suicide. If only the law were different and they would let her put her son away he would be alive today you see?

It's a difficult prospect to watch someone who is mentally ill and you know it, but they deny it! They swear they are cured, but you know he is sick. And if he kills himself you feel impelled to change something, anything.

You have to have a lot of sympathy for Danielle Steele, she thinks she killed her own son by not putting him into a mental hospital and now she is seeing it happen with britney spears.

She's wrong of course. Not because it's necessarily bad to force bipolars to get medicated. But because it would give too much power to lawyers and judges who could take all your money and property, lock you away for life if they decided you were mentally ill. It's ridiculous. But you have to have sympathy for her, she is consumed with guilt and will be for the rest of her life, and wants desperately to make it better, somehow.

From:

Do you have other sources of info that I do not?

Because I can't draw those kinds of comprehensive conclusions from the article originally linked. You represent her as saying many detailed things- has she said them elsewhere?

I don't think I have unusual amounts of sympathy, I just try to avoid misquoting people.

From:

His Bright Light by Danielle Steel. It's a book by her.

From:

I haven't read it. What does she say?

From:

http://www.amazon.com/His-Bright-Light-Story-Traina/dp/0385334672

From:

When you attribute these beliefs to her, are you paraphrasing or surmising? As I noted, these are important issues for me, and I'd want to be certain the views quoted are hers. Are there any direct quotes that support what you are saying?

From:

i'm not sure if i'm surmising or paraphrasing. Why not check the book out from the library and read it yourself?

From:

The local library is closed for repairs. :-)

Quoting can be dangerous, paraphrasing more so, and surmising catastrophic.

I have looked, but have found nothing to support the idea that Steel advocates generalized dismantling of individual rights, or that she is acting from the psychological state you describe. It's important that I am hesitant; I'm a clinician, and I shouldn't diagnose in the absence of clinical examination information.

So, I can't get on board with any claims as to her psychological state, and I don't see the accusations against her being backed up.

Thus far, it's just two people jumping to conclusions, even though the subject is a terribly important one.

I'm always open to being proven wrong, but I don't think that I can prove your point for you.

From:

well read the book when your library is repaired.

From:

Sure. If they have it.

In the meantime, can you otherwise substantiate your claims?

From:

no. i'm too lazy to type in excerpts, and a summary or paraphrase by me is disputable.

From:

"i'm too lazy to type in excerpts"

Not even a sentence? I'm not trying to prove you wrong, or anything, I just want some basis for what you have been saying.

And I'd accept a reasonable summary, at least for the purpose of this discussion.

C'mon, give me something.

I've been trying to find information online, and I have not yet found any reference to Steel's saying in the book that she wanted patient rights dismantled. That strikes me as odd, given how popular an author she is and how strongly many people (like me) feel about the protection of patient rights.

On the contrary, what I keep on seeing are people describing the book as a perhaps-maudlin but insightful account into the difficulties of a parent of a mentally ill child.

Did you read the book yourself?

From:

p210

nick needed to be hospitalized but he wouldnt agree to go,now that he was 18 he didnt have to do that either. we no longer had the right to hospitalize him when we felt he needed it or if the medication needed adjusting. he had to agree to go and of course he wouldnt. the more he needed it, the more he refused. it was an insane system.

From:

I should note that I comment from a standpoint of knowledge of, and outrage at, the wrongs that have been done in the name of psychiatry.

From:

Also acknowledge that Steel herself may not be "commenting from a standpoint of knowledge of, and outrage at, the wrongs that have been done in the name of psychiatry."

She is understandably but terribly biased. She is not a clinician. She is simply giving out her opinion, and the mass media is disseminating it.

From:

I can certainly affirm that Steel MAY or MAY NOT not be commenting from a standpoint of knowledge/ outrage. That goes without saying, really- and I've never tried to claim that she was correct in grasp or expression of the issues involved.

On the other hand, neither could I affirm her ignorance.

I'm merely saying that we should be careful not to put words "asylum days" in her mouth. Even post-edit, you seem to be generalising utterly on the basis of a couple of brief quotes, in a manner that seems neither ethical nor logical to me.

It has been reasonably argued before that current legislation is imperfect both with respect to preventing medical abuses and with respect to protecting the community from the dangerous.

I see no reason to claim that a call for tighter legislation equals a call to go back to the nightmarish days of old, an equation that you still seem quite comfortable making.

Free world, though.

From:

The point that I am making is similar to what

bonerici said above. She is advocating for the power to go back into the hands of the established powers of authority instead of the patient him- or herself.

From:

sophia-sadek.livejournal.com

This story reminds me of the worst aspect of psychiatry: it's often not just the doctor who misdiagnoses the patient. Here we have a pair of "estranged" parents wishing their daughter received more doping up by psychiatrists than she got. Here's a fiction author making a diagnosis from afar. If I were in the psychiatric profession, I'd be disturbed by the amount of armchair psychiatry practiced by lay people.

From:

I've worked in mental health care and I'm not disturbed by that. Once lay people refrain from violence and fraud, they have a right to their opinions, even opinions as to what diagnosis someone might have. I don't agree with the idea that only professionals should be allowed to weigh in.

I am quite disturbed by:
- armchair diagnosis and other inappropriate behaviour on the part of clinicians;
- general indolence, ignorance, and arrogance on the part of lawmakers.

I hold those two groups to a higher standard than I do lay people, who have a right to their opinion.

I don't second-guess the behaviour of Britney's parent(s). I don't have enough information to do so. They may be right, they may be wrong. We can guess, but we cannot know.

And Steel did not diagnose Britney, as far as I read; the "diagnosis" was not made by her, as far as I know. She was going by what other people have said.

Arguably, she should have kept her mouth shut, but I guess she might feel that the possible benefits of her speaking were worth the drawbacks and risks.

From: