Skip to main content
Forums Home

Lived Experience Forum

Acceptance, connection, support. Share the journey.

Safe, anonymous discussion for people living with mental illness, moderated 24/7 by mental health professionals.

Read the community guidelines
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Something’s not right

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Trigger warning: No human Rights on the royal commission

Hi there,

 

I just felt like I had to let this out (yes I know again, I'm sorry!)

 

And wanted to know if anyone else could relate.

 

Victoria is finally having a royal commission into the mental health system. And it is ignoring human rights.

 

As I know many people here will know all to well things are done to patients in mental health wards that would be considered seripse crimes with jail time if they were done to anyone else.

 

In fact the mere fact of being locked up against ones will forced to take drugs or forced to say they have a disease that is ideological. Behaviour that others think is weird and that they do not understand is only "abnormal" in a psrtpartic cultural context.

 

Other cultures have had different explanations for everything we call "mental illness". African shamans who learn to use spiritual gifts to heal are appalled by our mental health watds, where even belief in spirits is seem as a symptom of disease. A disease there is no model for. It's just called a disease purely because it's seen as "abnormal".

 

Some people see their experience as metaphors, sympplically working through inner issues, fears, concerns, traumas, etc. Some see it completely different ways. And yes, some see it as a disease and that is their right too.

 

But there is a big difference between having the right to see your ditsituat as a disease, change your mind at any time and maintain full legitmlegi and access to the support *you* find helpful and *you* ask for, and being forced to see it as a disease, or even as "delusional" when that doesn'take sene to you or your way of making meaning of the world.

 

And no matter how anyone sees their experience drugs should be a choice, they don't help everyone suppress their exlexperie and not everyone even wants to suppress their experience.

 

The convention on rights of persons with disabilities makes it clear that locking up people and forcing them into a particular perspective, model or treatment is a human rights abuse. The violence that goes with it definitely is.

 

Now we are being asked to "prove" that being tied to a bed or locked in solitary cobconfinem is traumatic. But if it's not them why would it be criminal to do it to anyone else? Does being seen as different, suddenly mean that violence and dominion stop hurting, stop being terrifying?

 

Does anyone else have experience of abuse or feel strongly we need to have equal Human rights and not ever be firfor again?

 

We have two Royal commissions on the cards one federal one state in Vic. Even if not Victorian, a change there will raise discussion in other states.

I am tired of being dehumanised and traumatised and leaving crisis "support" more broken than I went in.

 

Does anyone else agree that safe places should be safe and nobody should be forced into them? We have a criminal justice system for crimes. Where people are innocent until proven guilty not the other way around.

 

Love to hear what others think. Surely I can't be the only one who wants an end to force in mental health?

20 REPLIES 20

Re: Trigger warning: No human Rights on the royal commission

Hey there @Fredd50 

 

It certainly seems you've had your fair share of difficult situations; I'm sorry about that.

 

I do agree to a point, but not all the way. I never received the help I needed because my gp didn't believe in what a broken brain and nervous system can do to people. In my opinion this could also be seen as a breach of my human rights; not being placed in supervised care I mean. I could've ended my life except for my ignorance and will to survive that crises. Others in the same situation mightn't have been so strong.

 

Each singular case is individual. Tabling a topic for the Commision should address human rights if it's a clear case of abuse across the board. [Their] job of scrutinising complaints is a difficult one and takes many months to prepare and then address. Recommendations are investigated, debated and dealt with very carefully to ensure the best outcome for all concerned. It's also very expensive so care is taken when deciding what's appropriate.

 

There's also the issue of politics. 'Nuff said about that...

 

You mention disabled people; in the supported accommodation sector for instance, physical, emotional and mental abuse abounds which was found to be a relevant reason for a recent Royal Commission due to overwhelming reports from stakeholders.

 

I guess your main cause for concern seems to be respect for 'choice of treatment'. Psychologically, if a person is 'assessed' to have little self awareness, the ability to comprehend their choices or seem to be putting themselves at risk, authorities have a duty of care to take matters into their own hands. It's not a perfect science unfortunately, but necessary in many cases due to self harm or harm to others.

 

We've come a long way Fred. My first breakdown was in the 70's when there was no-one but my gp to turn to who dished out popular medication (for that time) as my treatment and let me cry on his shoulder. As well, there was only one welfare officer who had to address abuse issues for a town of 30,000 people! Change takes time.

 

I'm wondering if you've spoken to your state or federal members about your concerns. The only way to have your voice heard is to write or speak to the right people or create a petition for instance. Action speaks louder than words in some cases.

 

I do understand your need to talk about things on Sane though. It's easier for us to 'get' what you're saying and that's nice considering the battles we fight each day.

 

If you want to talk about what's happened to you specifically, I'm here most days to chat; just tag me ok.

 

All the best...

Hope Heart

Re: Trigger warning: No human Rights on the royal commission

GdaY @Hope4me
Just a quick reply to say thanks for your response. Taking the time to write a fuller reply as there is a lot in it.

But briefly I think I what it's important to learn from the ongoing issues with Royal commissions is his important it is for everyone to live free from Violence, abuse & exploitation and discrimination

The Victorian Royal Commission turned out to be an exercise in cover up, a lot of people tried to get abuse & harm & wrongdoing heard and put in the TOR. But couldn't.

Thankfully we now have the Royal Commission into Violence abuse and exploitation of persons with Disabilities that may fall short too but we keep trying again and again to get proper human rights.

 

What it is important to realise is that the so-called "medical model" is an ideology, not a reality or a science, but a belief system.

It wasn't discovered but invented and this is a demonstrable fact.

It's controversial, and gas been throughout its history.

 

The idea that it possible or reasonable to lock people up to prevent from committing "future crimes" is abhorrent to many.

 

It effectively does harm now, to prevent the imagination if harm in the future. As there is no reliable way to predict the future actions of a human, it inherently deprives if human rights to force this belief. It is also delusional to think it accurate as it is demonstrably false, unsubstantiable, and a breach of our most deeply held rights to be innocent until proven guilty of an actual crime that already exists, let alone an imaginary future crime.

 

What is important is your stated desire for confinement.

I agree if you think you need confinement, whether you actually need it or not,it should be provided, because what is really being provided is emotional security - you want confinement, so getting it may well help you.

But by the same token forcing that confinement will not help another. And there may be questions about how you came to want confinement etc that you might find you want to to resolve in your life, or not, as you see fit in accordance with your individual right to autonomy and self determination.

But as one routinely and systematically harmed by the process of "assessment" who was never guilty of any "future crimes" and ironically deprived of the legal capacity to take rightful responsibility for my actions in the few times I was genuinely guilty of a misdemeanor, punished without rights instead,I don't agree there is a need to protect against "future harm" by causing harm in the present. That is madness to me, if you pardon the ironic choice of language.

I was weird, not dangerous.

I was weird, not incapable.

The persons charged with "assessment" has no insight into my experience and thought it "floridly delusional". They had no room to understand. Their training actually went against their ability to understand. And ironically made them delusional - in the sense of posessing fixed, false beliefs.

while it was clear from the written evidence that their position was ideological, they though it was "real" -not just one perspective but the only possible interpretation of actual reality. This was always false, but it is very common among humans to become entrenched in beliefs that are actually false, that's why we try to make sure they aren't forced on one another - by the mechanism of inalientable human rights.

This way  people can be free to hold their false beliefs (which we all have all the time) without them harming others. If we give them the power to violently force their beliefs by not affording a person the power of escape, depriving them access to needed things or violently acting on them or physically confining them, we are doing harm. It's often not until later we realise the belief we were forcing was false. So best not to go around enforcing beliefs in the first place. I think that is pretty fair.

 

They locked me up because I was different and they convinced themselves it made me dangerous and incapable.

The reality was it they who caused harm.

We have come a long way but not far enough.

There's a big difference between opting in to confinement or handing over the reigns to others & being forced.

There is risk of harm to self in this act of choosing to hand the reins to others and be confined, harm a perseon may not know they are doing because theur understanding of the situation is limited by their range of past experience but there is risk in all adult decisions. So if you want to be a consenting adults entering a contract for risky confinement, I will fight for your right to do so.

But please don't think that a makes your choice not a risky one. It's just your choice.

We once thought it to be for the common good to burn witches or take Indigenous children from their parents. Our western "civilisation" is rife with cognitive dissonance.

Delusional thinking, true delusions, are not the rarity but the norm.

A person in an alternate state of consciousness may not be delusional at all, but processing something that is more aligned with their inner meaning, while still aware enough of the outer world to be physically safe.

A person with a Psychiatric qualifation mat possess beliefs that are fixed and false, by contrast.

We can't say who will harm whom until the harm us done. Even then, sometimes we go into denial or we don't know of other options so we may not be aware of the harm fir some time, or ever.

That's why human rights are fundamental and inalienable and shouldn't be at the whims of status quo or popular opinion.

Nor should one person be able do constrain or abrogate the rights of another by claiming to impute "incapacity" by invoking fear if "future harm".

In the case of vic royal commission. It was definitely politics.

Many people don't understand human rights development in Disabilty and keep thinking this idea of "harm to self or others" is real.

It is not. Nobody can decide a person's future actions.

What is important is providing support and recognising where we have become conditioned into belief systems that don't hold up to logical scrutiny, and in so doing are actually causing real harm not preventing imaginary future harm, when we force those beliefs onto others.

Your right to decide is yours and should be reasonably facilitated because it is your right. But by the same token, so should mine.

A society that continues to do real harm because it believes in "future crime" is, sadly doing much harm and twisting reality around to make the victims appear to be the perpetrators and vice versa.

Here is the very logical view if the UN human rights council on the matter

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CRPD/1...

I think the way forward is to raise consciousness on this so that *everyone's* genuine rights are protected.

That means we need to stop this belief that weird or troubled means dangerous, it was once black that meant dangerous.

I'm not putting down real struggles with suicide etc. Quite the opposite. I lost a loved one because of forced incarceration. It can't be assumed that everyone finds confinement soothing. We are all different. I respect your rights but I need mine and my loved one's rights to be respected too.

And that means full implement the UNCRPD as interpreted by the committee which means no forced psychiatry, confinement or any other 'treatment'.

That doesn't mean you can't choose to 'opt in' to being confined by others at future times if you want to take that risk of harm to yourself, it just means that others are protected from that harm.

 

If you choose a directive for confinement, it does not violate my rights or harm me. But if it is advocated that because you chose confinement while It harmed me and my family, that it should be forced on me and my family. When it harmed us, in my sister's case to the point if death. Quite contrary to the claim force was necessary it was lethally dangerous.

If the persons advocating for that are also persons who gain financially and they seek to misinform, distort or hide other options or deeper understanding from people because they gain financially or if they are persons who seek to hide their own wrongdoing from others or sometimes even from themselves- then it is not only violence harm, it is also abuse and exploitation. There are arguments that it is still abuse and exploitation even if it is not consciously done to cause harm. or consciously done knowingly. Often parents emotionally abuse their children by  putting them down or depriving them of emotional needs without meaning to. Human beings have a way of perpetrating harm on each other even if they don't hold the conscious intention to do so - we are complicated creatures that way.

As for speaking here it's about the need to feel safe to speak as we all should.

And its also great to have conversations and learn things from each other, as you said people who have been on the receiving end get it, the more similar your experience to mine the more likely you are to understand and vice versa. Its also why its important to realise where our differences lie so that your needs and choices can be respected for you without being forced on me. If it causes harm to you that is your risk totake. But it being forced on me because the harm was hidden - and it was claimed to be the 'safe' option while the default of me having access to human rights was considered 'dangerous'? that is a fallacy. Its never safe to deprive human rights. A person can choose the risk of potentially harmful confinement because they want to without it violating their rights, a person forced has their rights violated and the basis of 'risk' is not a substantiated one but predjudicial one assumed from their weirdness or difference.

There are also provisions in the UNCRPD for people with intellectual disabilities, every person deserves full access to rights, no matter how strange or different, the days when we believed you had to be 'like me' or brutalised or confined 'for your own good' are hopefully something more and more people are recognising need to be put into the past.

 

Speaking out is vital. And it is an action. Indeed all the activities you suggested are also words. I think sometimes we forget how important and powerful it is to share our words.

So thanks for yours, I'll be sure to properly take them in and respond. 

 

I think it's vital for views are respected fir your own life but also not allowed to be imposed on others.

 

It's that last bit where we've really gone wrong s a society, like the old bible story seeking to see others as Incapable or likely to commit future harm we blinded ourselves to the harm we were actually causing in doing this.

 

Like with all systems that have forced their views sadly, many were convinced, and really couldn't see the harm they did. They were, ironically, incapable. 

 

No human is perfect. That's why we need things like UNCRPD. We need guidance so we don't inadvertently continue to cause real harm out of fear of imaginary harm. Or in reality often fear if difference or the unknown.

 

Increasingly we have to also guard against harm done because of denial or unwillingness to learn from history or change our ways.

 

I did write and call my local MPs wet the Vic royal commission, so did many others. 

 

Changing our society from one of force, predjudice, misunderstanding and blind trust in the status quo is something that ultimately I think we all need to participate in. It's the real way to understand and prevent or heal from harm to self or others in my view.

 

I hope you enjoy the UN committee's explanation of article 14 and why it was being breached by so many nations including our own. I find it a very important restorative statement. We need to understand that the 'harm to self or others' claim is often used to cause harm, not to prevent it, a good example of this might be manus island. While some of the population have been convinced this horror is for the 'greater good' to 'stop the boats', thankfully increasingly many people don't agree this is a reasonable thing to do and do not fear refugees. Others do. The refugees are being locked up out of fear and politics not because of any genuine risk of 'harm to self or others'. It is a logical fallacy to be causing harm that is so severe it qualifies as an atrocity and claiming to do it to avoid harm. I fear the society that does not question this belief and evolve beyond it. to me it is quite clearly not something that has a basis in reason or reality.

 

For a long time I have been trapped under the truism of "for their own good" or "they might cause harm".

 

Thus evokes fear, but it doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny. It's imou to recognise it was similar logic used to justify the stolen generation and other atrocities.

 

Every single day I am harmed or caused fear by this belief of others. We call this belief prejudice. Because that is what it is. Others belief, falsely, that I am a harm to them. The moment they hear about my past. They believed, falsely that I was at risk at harm when  Iwas experiencing those things. That others might really be struggling with suicidality doesn't change that, I've struggled with all sorts of things too, everyone is different. If you want to take the risk of being confined that's your right. It's not your right to invoke prejudice that others should be forced. That is causing harm, not preventing it. You don't know what is good for them. Neither do people who happened to be schooled in a particular degree. 

 

That there will always be those who advocate force out of fear is one of the saddest things in our society, until we learn that lesson we are doomed to cause harm over and over again, never realising that there are other ways, never realising that we have not got that right and we need to take the log out of our own eye, not attempt to take the speck out of our brothers. If we force, we harm. If we seek to help, we need to learn how to be gentle, trustworthy, and respect the boundaries of others. We need to be ok with uncertainty and not knowing. And we need to establish inalienable rights and boundaries. So that people can choose their own risks. As there are inherently risks in all choices. Confinement isn't avoiding risk, its an incredibly risky and potentially extremely harmful thing to do. 

 

We need to guard at these logical fallacies if we are genuinely to prevent ourselves or others causing harm.

 

Of course, that isn't the same as a person making decisions fur themselves that may include confinement. But the question arises: has that person been given other options to understand? Are they causing themselves harm by choosing confinement?

 

Maybe they are, but it's their choice as an adult. Nobody has perfect knowledge. That's why we don't punish people or confine them pre-emptively fur crimes they have not committed or force them into confinement because another person chose it. What one chooses can harm or even be fatally harmful fur another if forced. It is an act of violence.

 

And as a victim if this and one who lost someone because I perpetrated it on her, convincing myself it was fir her own good, I beg my community to face this painful reality and heal from it. Not go into denial and make unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable claims it was "necessary" to prevent imaginary future harm when the evidence points in the opposite direction.

 

 

Re: Trigger warning: No human Rights on the royal commission

sorry my 'quick reply' turned out to be a bit of a book!

I'll still re-read yours more carefully but try to be briefer in any follow up

thanks again for your perspective,

I really think we have the need to leave the kids we love with a world that doesn't think they 

need to be locked up for being different or distressed but rather one where we learn the deep and

meaningful way in whicih we are all inter-related so that we can care for each other 

and learn about all the corners of life, we need to move beyond the dogma of what we thought we knew and I think the UNCRPD is a good start in this.

once we realise the basis of all our decisions regarding what is or isn't expected to be harmful must be made according to human rights, we can start to realise where the real harm lies, not the imaginary stuff 

Heart:Heart:

Re: Trigger warning: No human Rights on the royal commission

Hey there, 

This is such an important discussion. It is so important the complexities and shortcomings of the mental health system are discussed by the people who use it or find themselves in it. I can hear how different your experiences have been in interacting with mental health supports and how the support can vary from inadequate to so disempowering. 

Take care and please reach to team@saneforums.org if this triggers anything difficult Smiley Happy

Tortoiseshell 

 

Re: Trigger warning: No human Rights on the royal commission

@Fredd50  yes i can relate very much. at the end of the day for me i believe that it should come down to personal choice and the right to choice. so long as someone is not going to hurt another person then i feel they should be allowed to choose. i am also pro choice regarding the decision the SH and i want to make this very clear that i dont mean when someone is doing it on a whim and the is MY belief only but if someone has made a considered and thoughful decision and understands the counsequnces of thier own actions and it isnt hurting another person then they should be free to act as they wish. as should people be allowed to choose what sort of care they recieve and how they recieve it. if someone feels unsafe and they want help they should be able to get it and should look for it. but i really dont believe in forcing someone to do something especially when it is truamatizing to them. 

 

the other thing i find difficult is that the way assessments on capacity are made is not very reliable and often doctors will only spend a few minutes with people before making a desicion. as for duty of care i believe that a doctor should have a duty of care to make sure their treatment isnt hurting the patient and this aspect is often overlooked in the mental helath system. it is not an easy topic but i really do think it isnt fair to force someone to take medication or to lock them up simply on posibilities that have no way of being acuratley predictied by anyone. you cant send someone to prision for thinking about a crime. likewise if someone DOESN'T want to go to hospital they shouldnt have to. 

again i would like to state clearly THESE ARE MY BELIEFS ONLY AND I AM NOT ENCOURAGING OR DISCOURAGING ANYTHING SIMPLY STATING AN OPNION. 

 

i really can empathise with this topic as i know the only thing the system has done has been hurt me and that has been my experience and others may say differently and that is their right but this is what happened to me. 

Re: Trigger warning: No human Rights on the royal commission

I'm really glad we're talking about this.

 

I agree with all you've said and much of what others said too 

 

There's just that one thing at the heart if it that breaks my heart.

 

It's the "harm to self or others" thing.

 

It comes down to discrimination.

 

That's why the UN committee had to explain it all step by step.

 

They made a really good point: every citizen has an obligation not to do harm. The legal system is set up to say what acts are considered harmful and which not. And it applies to everyone. 

 

By depriving people of legal capacity because they "look strange", the myth is that we are treating them "better" the reality is it's much worse. The right to stand trial and be innocent until proven guilty or receive a sentence that fits the crime are forgone. The person is locked up arbitrarily at the doctor's discretion.

 

If a person actually commits a crime, received a sentence and that sentence is commuted to something kinder due to the person behind distressed, that's different, but that isn't what happens. It dies happen in diversion programs and restrorative justice and they are much better models.

 

But involuntary psych is locking people up in harmful places who haven't even done anything. Just broken the 11th commandment "don't be different". It's discrimination to assume "different" means "dangerous".

 

That's why the UN committee had to spell this out. Why should people seem as "strange" have to "prove they aren't dangerous" in order NOT to be locked up, while the average citizen is not allowed to be locked up until it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they have done something extremely harmful?

 

There is no reason, there is only predjudice. Just as it was once believed that black people were less than white people and it was reasonable to make them slaves. In those days a black person might get free by "proving" they were "white" but as long as they were "black" everyone "knew" they should be slaves.

 

It's called cognitive dissonance, and it's effectively a society-wide Delusion. There is no logic to it. There's no causal link between strangeness and dangerousness, statistically speaking the group we should be locking up.is young men. But I think if we recommended locking up all young men unless they could "prove they weren't dangerous" there would be an uproar.

 

There should be an uproar here. Because the irony is the people who locked me up were dangerous. They hurt me physically and emotionally over and over again. They are hurting me still in so many ways. 

 

When we sit down and try to write in a piece of paper exactly how we think that bring different means being dangerous compared with all the ways that "normal" people hurt each other, there is no greater danger. We just see what isn't there because we are used to looking for it. We've been conditioned.

 

At the bottom of it all its a human rights abuse. But the really sad thing is a lot of people are so used to the predjudice they can't see it. Just like it oneu was with women, or stolen generations. What we are actually doing to people is an atrocity: locking them up based in bring flagged as "different" based on appearance, speed and volume of speech, body language. etc

 The person, of anything is frightened and distressed and needs genuine compassion and kindness. Often calms down when feels scxepi and heard no matter how "strange" appearance. But instead is locked up and if refuses drugs or the unsubstantiated belief system if the doctors is violently harmed. It is unacceptable morally. But sadly, abused people often come to accept the abuse as "normal" and it breaks my heart.

 

Of course there isn't even any real help in those places, not that I've ever found helpful anyway, nothing but drugs and force. Nothing. No understanding, no kindnesses, no talking. You can't just be a person in distress seeking human connection, you have to be a "sick person", scrutinized, humiliated written up in notes more damning than a criminal record and not allowed to explore, understand or learn from your experience. 

 

I doubt anyone even would choose it if they had experienced something truly helpful but that's what is so sad about it. Abuse is so endemic, most people never have. Drugs, labels, confinement and "psychoeducation" are all lost people know. Most have never had the experience of unconditional acceptance, encouragement, understanding that what they are going through is natural and the warmth and compassion they need to heal.

 

 

Re: Trigger warning: No human Rights on the royal commission

I'm really glad we're talking about this.

I agree with all you've said and much of what others said too 

 

There's just that one thing at the heart if it that breaks my heart.

 

It's the "harm to self or others" thing.

 

It comes down to discrimination.

 

That's why the UN committee had to explain it all step by step.

 

They made a really good point: every citizen has an obligation not to do harm. The legal system is set up to say what acts are considered harmful and which not. And it applies to everyone. 

 

By depriving people of legal capacity because they "look strange", the myth is that we are treating them "better" the reality is it's much worse. The right to stand trial and be innocent until proven guilty or receive a sentence that fits the crime are forgone. The person is locked up arbitrarily at the doctor's discretion.

 

If a person actually commits a crime, received a sentence and that sentence is commuted to something kinder due to the person behind distressed, that's different, but that isn't what happens. It dies happen in diversion programs and restrorative justice and they are much better models.

 

But involuntary psych is locking people up in harmful places who haven't even done anything. Just broken the 11th commandment "don't be different". It's discrimination to assume "different" means "dangerous".

 

That's why the UN committee had to spell this out. Why should people seem as "strange" have to "prove they aren't dangerous" in order NOT to be locked up, while the average citizen is not allowed to be locked up until it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they have done something extremely harmful?

 

There is no reason, there is only predjudice. Just as it was once believed that black people were less than white people and it was reasonable to make them slaves. In those days a black person might get free by "proving" they were "white" but as long as they were "black" everyone "knew" they should be slaves.

 

It's called cognitive dissonance, and it's effectively a society-wide Delusion. There is no logic to it. There's no causal link between strangeness and dangerousness, statistically speaking the group we should be locking up.is young men. But I think if we recommended locking up all young men unless they could "prove they weren't dangerous" there would be an uproar.

 

There should be an uproar here. Because the irony is the people who locked me up were dangerous. They hurt me physically and emotionally over and over again. They are hurting me still in so many ways. 

 

When we sit down and try to write in a piece of paper exactly how we think that bring different means being dangerous compared with all the ways that "normal" people hurt each other, there is no greater danger. We just see what isn't there because we are used to looking for it. We've been conditioned.

 

At the bottom of it all its a human rights abuse. But the really sad thing is a lot of people are so used to the predjudice they can't see it. Just like it oneu was with women, or stolen generations. What we are actually doing to people is an atrocity: locking them up based in bring flagged as "different" based on appearance, speed and volume of speech, body language. etc

 The person, of anything is frightened and distressed and needs genuine compassion and kindness. Often calms down when feels scxepi and heard no matter how "strange" appearance. But instead is locked up and if refuses drugs or the unsubstantiated belief system if the doctors is violently harmed. It is unacceptable morally. But sadly, abused people often come to accept the abuse as "normal" and it breaks my heart.

 

Of course there isn't even any real help in those places, not that I've ever found helpful anyway, nothing but drugs and force. Nothing. No understanding, no kindnesses, no talking. You can't just be a person in distress seeking human connection, you have to be a "sick person", scrutinized, humiliated written up in notes more damning than a criminal record and not allowed to explore, understand or learn from your experience. 

 

I doubt anyone even would choose it if they had experienced something truly helpful but that's what is so sad about it. Abuse is so endemic, most people never have. Drugs, labels, confinement and "psychoeducation" are all lost people know. Most have never had the experience of unconditional acceptance, encouragement, understanding that what they are going through is natural and the warmth and compassion they need to heal.

 

 

Re: Trigger warning: No human Rights on the royal commission

@Fredd50 

I will go through that UN link.  Thank you.

 

Yes I am glad that people are talking about it.

 

Put a submission into the Royal Commission.  Have you been to any of the Community Consultations?  Maybe you are not Vic.

 

I could say so much, and have posted widely on this forum in attempts to get discussion going.  Dont take my brevity as lack of interest.  

 

Force and being held in restraints is horrible to experience and horrible to watch our loved ones go through.  Of course easy use of force will increase lack of trust.

 

 

Re: Trigger warning: No human Rights on the royal commission

@Fredd50 yes i agree with all you have said. it is another case of the common knolwedge being wrong yet again. but it really gets me that people cant accept they could be worng about things when historically we have been wrong many many times and should accept that when we find new information we also need to change our views in response to that. it is sad i found myself balming myself for the abuse i suffered as a result of being in the system and but i have realised it is a much bigger problem than just the interactions i have had. it is a systemic issue and much like intstitional racism is not going to be quickly fixed. i am not even sure it will happen in my life time but for me and my wellbeing i just need to stay out of there. 

Further information:

  • Loading...

For urgent assistance, call: