united kingdom

Doctor Bradbury, please help me

Posted on


This month, we could read about doctor Bradbury. Shock and outrage surfaced with the news that he had molested innocent children with cancer for 22 years.

These boys were all vulnerable and gravely ill. In all my years on the bench, I have never come across such a grotesque betrayal of your Hippocratic oath.

Judge Gareth Hawkesworth

kid

The case reminds me of Jimmy Saville, who also abused so many children without getting caught before it was too late. I think about the nightmare it must have been for those who’ve trusted these men. Children, hoping for a better future, and how they probably has had their lives destroyed. I won’t even think about how and why this happened. The story is familiar: People were suspicious and thought something might be going on. In Saville’s case, people even knew that abuse happened, but they failed to speak up, dismissing the truth for several reasons. Some because they were afraid, since Saville was famous and liked. Some thought they must have misunderstood, and some plainly wouldn’t think about it.

Bradbury was described as “a man of great charm and persuasiveness” whom everybody trusted. When one victim raised concerns with his mother, she said: “He’s a doctor, it must be necessary.”

Dec 1st, 2014

Our mind is the king of denial, and reigns over conscience and fear. After the fact we are haunted by guilt and think about the signs that suddenly makes everything obvious. I remember one of the people who suspected that Saville did indeed molest children. She talked about why she didn’t report what she had suspected. Several of the reasons mentioned, were named, and it was clear that she wished she had followed her gut feeling. We can all remember occasion where we failed to do the right thing, and most of us feel guilty for a long time afterwards. What’s the cure? Simply do what’s right when you feel something might be wrong. I, like the rest of the world, shudder when we read stories like these, but what really scares me is abuse on a large scale. It’s abuse in countries where no safety nets exists. Where abuse doesn’t get investigated because of corruption or lack of laws.

Examples are girls sold to slavery and poor women in developed countries who endure secular violence on a regular basis. They have silent screams that we never hear, because they are muffled from the very beginning. This is was scares me more than anything else. In UK, the children and families who were affected by doctor Bradbury, at least get justice. In many poor countries, the perpetuates walk free after abuse and even murder. The innocent women and men have no place to turn for comfort, help or hope. They must endure another crisis, every day, while the rest of the world goes on like nothing is wrong.

What scares you the most?

Maybe, when we hear the screams, we will finally wake up enough to do something for the victims of abuse. Until then, let us all remember to speak up when we suspect something’s amiss. We might regret it otherwise.

The sound of shocking news

Dr Myles Bradbury patients’ families warned children could be abused

Just like a pill

Posted on


Psychiatric drugs are doing us more harm than good

As with benzodiazepines in the 1980s, the UK is prescribing SSRI antidepressants at a staggering rate – and to no good effect
'More than 53m prescriptions for antidepressants were issued in 2013 in England alone.'

‘More than 53m prescriptions for antidepressants were issued in 2013 in England alone.’ Photograph: travel-and-more/Alamy
We appear to be in the midst of a psychiatric drug epidemic, just as we were when benzodiazepines (tranquilisers) were at their height in the late 1980s. The decline in their use after warnings about addiction led to a big increase in the use of the newer antidepressants, the SSRIs (selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors).
Figures released by the Council for Evidence-based Psychiatry, which was set up to challenge many of the assumptions commonly made about modern psychiatry, show that more than 53m prescriptions for antidepressants were issued in 2013 in England alone. This is almost the equivalent of one for every man, woman and child and constitutes a 92% increase since 2003.
Sales of antidepressants have skyrocketed everywhere and are now so high in my own country, Denmark, that – if the prescriptions were equally distributed – every citizen could be in treatment for six years of their life. The situation is even worse in the US, where direct advertising of prescription drugs to the public is permitted and where more psychiatrists were “educated” with industry hospitality than any other medical discipline.
I began to realise the scale of the problem when I was persuaded seven years ago to become a tutor for a PhD thesis on whether history was repeating itself, by comparing benzodiazepines (“mother’s little helper”) with SSRIs. This research has established that people get as hooked on SSRIs as they did on benzodiazepines, and 37 of 42 withdrawal symptoms were the same for SSRIs as for benzodiazepines.
It is hard to believe that so many people have become mentally disturbed and that these prescription increases reflect a genuine need, so we need to look for other explanations. There seem to be three main reasons for the huge growth.
First, the definitions of psychiatric disorders are so vague that many healthy people can be diagnosed inappropriately. Second, some of the psychiatrists who wrote the diagnostic manuals were on the industry’s payroll, and this may have also led to significant diagnostic inflation. Third, the companies’ behaviour has been worse in psychiatry than in any other area of medicine, with billion-dollar fines paid for the illegal marketing of psychiatric drugs for non-approved uses. The rise in sales reflects patient dependency on these SSRIs: they may have great difficulty stopping even when they taper off the drugs slowly. Withdrawal symptoms are often misdiagnosed as a return of the disease or the start of a new one, for which drugs are then prescribed. Over time, this leads to an increase in the number of drug-dependent, long-term users.
Another major problem with psychiatric drugs is that they can cause the symptoms they are supposed to alleviate. Unfortunately, psychiatrists tend to increase the dose or add another drug when a patient reports negative effects.
The problem is that many of these drugs simply do not work as people suppose. The main effect of antidepressants is not the reduction of depressive symptoms. They are no better than placebo for mild depression, only slightly better for moderate depression, and benefit only one out of 10 with severe depression. In around half of all patients, they cause sexual disturbances. The symptoms include decreased libido, delayed orgasm or ejaculation, no orgasm or ejaculation and erectile dysfunction. Studies in both humans and animals suggest that these effects may persist long after the drug has been discontinued.
The US Food and Drug Administration has shown that antidepressants increase suicidal behaviour up to the age of 40, and many suicides have been reported even in healthy people who took the drugs for other reasons (for example, for stress or pain). Another report also said that, among people over 65, antidepressants are believed to kill one out of every 28 people treated for one year, because they lead to falls and hip fractures. Indeed, it is not clear whether antidepressants are safe at any age.
My studies of the research literature in this whole area lead me to a very uncomfortable conclusion: the way we currently use psychiatric drugs is causing more harm than good. We should therefore use them much less, for shorter periods of time, and always with a plan for tapering off, to prevent people from being medicated for the rest of their lives.

Am I even here?

Posted on Updated on


we/me do not exist in the eyes of many and it hurts

29NOV

This post has sat in drafts since July and we’re really missing blogging but can’t come up with words to write a new post

**Trigger Warning-Descriptions of Self injury**

Why is D.I.D a controversial diagnosis???

Why aren’t diabetes or asthma controversial?

In the area of the UK I live in, it is impossible to find an NHS psychiatrist whobelieves in D.I.D or other Dissociative Disorders. Eh? Believes in? It is not a doctors job to believe in a symptom / illness, surely?
Isn’t it their job to asses symptoms and use their findings to make a diagnosis before offering appropriate treatment?

I mean, imagine your Dr doesn’t believe in diabetes, or asthma. Then, imagine you are hypoglycaemic or in the midst of an asthma attack and the medical professionals there to help tell you they don’t believe in the symptoms you are displaying.
Is a diabetic or asthmatic meant to just curl up and die in the corner?

This pi**es us off so much.

To have had to pay privately to be assessed and diagnosed, to be unable to rely on services our taxes pay for in order to be supported, to look online for information and find “controversy” and D.I.D intertwined amongst the “D.I.D does not exist” in all search engines.

Yes, there are people who are wrongly diagnosed with D.I.D. In my view, many with D.I.D are incorrectly diagnosed with various other disorders and made to endure ‘help’ that is damaging.

When diagnosed with D.I.D, it is down to the individual (you know what I mean, hopefully) to research terms like attachment theory, structural dissociation, and so much more.
It is down to that individual to track down a therapist who is willing to a)believe in D.I.D b)be prepared to work with a D.I.D client for years.

I don’t know of anywhere that is available in the UK on the NHS. I know that where I live there is absolutely no such support available.

Why should I have to spell ‘d i s s o c i a t i v e i d e n t i t y d i s o r d e r ‘ before giving the ICD10 codes and DSMIV codes to health professionals?
Why should I then be told that “I’ve never heard of it” and “Oh, we don’t believe in that”.
When looking through my local NHS trusts website, I put Dissociative Disorders into their search box and came up with nothing, except a leaflet on personality disorders which mentioned D.I.D being a personality disorder.I emailed them regarding this and apparently it will be changed when they update their leaflet. Who knows if/when the leaflet will be updated.

I cannot access support from the agencies we’re supposed to rely on.


//
Yes, I am very fortunate to have a fantastic therapist and really good back up from the Dr who asessed and diagnosed me (privately) . What if K was no longer able to work with me? There is no plan B since I asked all the right places and the only recommendation I got was K which on one hand is reassuring but it fills me with fear over what we’d do without her.

Published by the American Psychiatric Associat...
Published by the American Psychiatric Association, the DSM-IV-TR provides a common language and standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Why should going past the buildings where I accessed the CMHT (community mental health team) trigger panic attacks? Why should I have the fear that if one time, the self injury goes too far, I can’t go to A+E (which would result in either admittance to the Psych ward or referral to the CMHT). Wounds that need sutures don’t get sutured since my local A+E is such a frightening place where dignity, respect and care have been forgotten about. The last time I was there, requiring treatment for selfinjury wounds, the curtains around the bay were open at all times so other patients and their visitors saw and heard things that every part of me works so hard in hiding. What if a wound were arterial, though?let’s not think about that

It hurts so much to be pushed further and further from the big society and to have little hope of ever being able to engage with it.

The sound of melting ice

Posted on Updated on


Use your head – for we have only one planet. I have written about climate change on my Norwegian blog (the link is a translation of the Norwegian text. I cannot guarantee that google translate did a superb job. But the point is: I have always been interested in the climate, already as a 12-year old I made flyers to “save the nature”. When I found an interesting article in “the guardian” I just had to share it with you.

No more denial. Time to act on climate change

Our leaders must set the climate change gainsayers to one side and confront imminent catastrophe

Greenland Ice-Cap Draws Global Warming Tourists

Melted water runs over the icecap in Greenland. Photograph: Uriel Sinai/Getty Images

In his recent book Ten Billion, Stephen Emmott posed an intriguing question: what would happen if humanity discovered tomorrow that there was an asteroid on a collision course with Earth, one that would bring calamity on a precise date several decades in the future? An event like that could result in the eradication of a large chunk of life on Earth and would surely galvanise the planet, argued Emmott. Every scientist, engineer, university and business leader would be enlisted to find ways to deflect the errant asteroid and help our species survive. We might even succeed.

The idea is intriguing because humanity now finds itself facing just such a global catastrophe – except there is no specific date for our meeting with destiny and there is no asteroid. Nor is there any sign that we appear to be interested in trying to save ourselves or rescue our planet. The problem is that we face a threat that is manmade and insidious but which is every bit as dangerous as an asteroid impact – and that is global warming.

Last week, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published its fifth assessment report on the physical science of global warming and made it clear that the continued burning of fossil fuels to run our cars, factories and electricity plants is now virtually certain to induce serious alterations to our climate. These changes will not arrive with an astronomical bang, of course, but will appear with stealth. Nevertheless, the IPCC’s report makes it clear that rising sea levels, acidifying oceans, shrinking icecaps and thawing Arctic tundra are now likely to occur with virtual certainty by the end of the present century.

Thus humanity is conducting the greatest and most important scientific experiment ever carried out – on itself. And it is doing so by pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at an accelerating rate. Since the Industrial Revolution began, we have burned half a trillion tonnes of carbon from coal, oil and gas, states the IPCC. Now we are set to burn another half trillion in a few decades.

Surface temperatures have already risen by 0.89C in the past 200 years and could rise by a further 3C or more by the end of the century. Populations on coasts, in Bangladesh, for example, face the prospect of devastating flooding, while those who live at the edge of spreading deserts could suffer famine and increased disease.

Such scenarios are the worst possible outcomes of our continued burning of coal, oil and gas, of course. Further temperature rises may be limited to lower figures and that would certainly lessen future damage. Unfortunately, we cannot be sure what future temperature rises will be or how severely our climate will change, despite scientists’ best efforts. Meteorology is a complex business.

Under such circumstances, it might seem prudent to act today to reduce carbon emissions, thus avoiding the potential threats that lie ahead. Yet climate talks remain deadlocked, nations continue to burn fossil fuels while those who deny our climate change is changing have quadrupled in numbers in the UK since 2005.

The critical question is straightforward: why are we so reluctant to act? Why has the world turned its back on a disaster that has the potential to wreck life on Earth for centuries? Answers have a lot to do with the unpalatable nature of the message that climate scientists bring us. A quiet turning away is common.

However, there is another pernicious reason for our failure to act: the bitter, often vitriolic campaigns of climate change deniers – men and women (but mostly men) who simply refuse to accept that humanity is changing weather systems. They have played a major part in halting progress that could lead to global deals to reduce carbon emissions. The most vociferous of these operate in the US where rightwing thinktanks, often backed by oil and energy corporations, have funded lobbyists who, by questioning every statement made by government scientists, have helped to paralyse the nation’s political ability to tackle climate change. (Craig Rosebraugh’s documentary, released here last week, reveals his considered view of these individuals in his film’s title, Greedy Lying Bastards.)

By contrast, the activities of UK deniers look less extreme, though they have still been dangerously effective, constantly sowing seeds of doubt in comment articles and news stories peppered with falsehoods and cherry-picked data. Similarly, news and current affairs programmes have all too often “balanced” the voices of scientists with the views of cranky deniers, despite the expertise of the former and the ignorance of the latter. Last week’s coverage of the IPCC report provided many examples.

In some cases, commentators said global temperature rises have paused recently. In fact, they have continued to increase, albeit at a reduced rate. Others have maintained that Arctic sea ice levels have bounced back from their recent calamitous drop. This, again, is untrue. They reached their sixth lowest extent this year. And then there is the claim by others that Arctic sea ice loss has been balanced by Antarctic sea ice gain. Once more, this is a travesty of the truth, though at least one national newspaper promoted it yesterday in its IPCC coverage. The Arctic has lost about 3m sq km of ice in the past 30 years while the Antarctic has gained 0.3m, the latter figure probably being no more than a reflection of year-to-year variability.

The spread of climate change denial now, sadly, touches government. David Cameron, who once expressed a wish to lead a coalition that would be the “greenest government ever”, has found himself surrounded by Tory colleagues who simply cannot accept that climate change is happening. Two have recently been elevated to important posts. Peter Lilley is now a member of Cameron’s strategy group but is an avowed sceptic who voted against the UK Climate Change Act 2008, while Owen Paterson, another sceptic, has been made environment secretary with responsibility for making the UK resilient to climate change impacts. These are not encouraging developments. Key decisions about shale gas, electricity generation and flood protection will have to be made in the UK in the next year. It is now doubtful we have the right men to do the job.

What Britain urgently needs is an unambiguous statement from our government that it recognises very serious changes are now affecting our planet; that we have the will to tackle a growing global catastrophe; and that we are prepared to address difficult, unpopular truths. To date, we have heard nothing.

The sound of shocking news

Posted on Updated on


b6b85fcc9bd94ff4de10e6ae173f3c44

You can cut all the flowers 
but you cannot keep 
spring from coming

 

Yesterday I showed a video-interview that I found on an excellent blog I really like to visit when I need information about personality disorders  (“Dating a psychopath“) . It was about a famous man in UK (Jimmy Savile), who had many of the traits of a charismatic psychopath.

The following video is footage collected after his death, when the truth came out about him. He had fooled the public for decades. Masked with charisma. Which was, only a mask. He was not only a charismatic sociopath. He was also a paedophile.

Exposure – The Other Side of Jimmy Saville… by couchtripper


Exposure – The Other Side of Jimmy Saville… by couchtripper

The sound of turning around

Posted on


National Suicide Prevention Lifeline
National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I found this on the web and really loved it

Joy Turns to Pain When You Flip Over These Clever Suicide-Prevention Ads Real message is upside down

By  David Gianatasio

Publicis’s poignant print ads for suicide-prevention group Samaritans of Singapore use ambigrams to give upbeat messages negative meanings when viewed upside down. “I’m fine” becomes “Save me,” “Life is great” morphs into “I hate myself” and “I feel fantastic” reads “I’m falling apart.” The tagline, “The signs are there if you read them. Help us save a life before it’s too late,” is also printed upside down. The campaign does a fine job of depicting the subtle, often hidden nature of depression and anxiety disorders. It’s novel for the category, taking an approach that’s clever enough to generate broad coverage, extending the message far beyond its original market. Perhaps those reading about this work will question declarations of happiness from friends and family members that don’t quite ring true. The writing may be on the wall, but sometimes you’ve got to look at things in a different way to avert disaster.

samaritans-hed-2013 (1)
I feel fantastic or I`m falling apart
Samaritans-2
“Life is great” or “I hate myself”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Samaritans-3
“I`m fine” or “save me

Related articles