Civilization without Civility: The Least Loved American

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

We had an interesting discussion in class over the treatment of Jared Loughner. The issue came up as a case study in forced drugging. Despite the brutality of his attack on Gabrielle Giffords and her entourage, it is difficult to not sympathize with his plight at the hands of "medical" practitioners. In an attempt to rescue him from a regime of unhealthy chemicals, his attorneys forced him to withdraw from drugs to which he had become addicted. The withdrawal symptoms were sufficiently degrading to warrant reinstatement of the pharmaceutical regime by a federal judge.

During our discussion of the topic one of our students suggested that the affair could be used as a litmus test to determine where an individual stands on the political spectrum. Conservatives might typically favor forced drugging for one reason or another. Anyone who is naive to charlatan practice might simply kowtow to the idea that drugging Loughner is a positive action. A conservative naif might see it as a way to prepare Loughner for trial and eventual execution. A liberal naif might think that Loughner is "irrational" and that drugging him is the humane thing to do.

People who are in-the-know with respect to charlatan practice have different reasons for their positions. An informed conservative might favor forced drugging because he holds stock in pharmaceutical manufacturing enterprises. Promoting the use of dangerous chemicals suits his personal financial and punitive ambitions. The informed liberal, on the other hand, might question the judgment of the attending physicians. Does a temper tantrum really warrant an evaluation of being a danger? Is this another case of doping up a prisoner for the convenience of the jailers?

The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law points out that this case exists in a gray area in the interpretation of law and practice. They point out that forced treatment before a verdict has been rendered detracts from the rights of the accused. In this case prison administration proceeded to drug the prisoner without due process. A judge was consulted only after Loughner's attorneys appealed the action.

What are your feelings on the way that this least-loved American has been treated by the law enforcement machinery?

Comments

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Liberals, research informs us, also own shares of pharma companies.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Are they as likely to allow their fiscal interests to influence their political positions?

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Someone goes on a killing spree, someone is forced to spend a year in a hospital, someone is locked up against their will, and yet here's sophia, milking it for her own personal axe... this can't get any more... expected.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

How do you feel about handcuffs?

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

You remind me of a story about enchanted handcuffs used by Pakistani police during the hunt for Kalid Sheikh Muhammad.

Manacles are used as temporary restraints. They are typically not left on the prisoner 24 hours a day. They are also more economical to apply than drugs. Manacles would have been a better way to address the temper tantrum issue.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

It doesn't say a thing anywhere about withdrawl. You are making things up. Your post is a lie, you should feel bad.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Texans have a lot of withdrawl issues.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

He had been taking addictive drugs for some time before he was cut off. Some of the symptoms that he exhibited are those of someone going through withdrawal. Would you like pointers to information on all of the prescribed drugs? I would gladly provide them.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

What are your feelings on the way that this least-loved American has been treated by the law enforcement machinery?
I think that the law enforcement machinery is made up of people with a lot of competing issues and balancing demands placed upon them by the input and authorities deriving from democratic practice. I think that there are judges who weigh risks and possibilities of further violence against their own ability to sleep at night. I think there are judges who agonize over decisions knowing full well that a wrong decision can cost someone their life or livelihood. I think there are doctors in the prison system who do their best to ascertain Mr. Loughner, and I think there are a lot of prison guards who are working for a living so they can go home at night and bitch at their kids to be quiet, and wonder whether or not they're going to make the mortgage this month. I think there are issues and difficulties and problems with human society, that very often end up in contradictory or counter-productive ends due to a confluence of competing powers and interests and needs.

And in all of this, your puerile, simplistic, conspiracy-mongering narcissism which is dedicated only to your own sense of prestige and knowing-better is a damn insult to everyone who ever had to work for a paycheck.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

I hope it makes you feel better to have gotten that off your chest.

RED FLAG

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

you had me agreeing until the last comment. Really more of an attack than a comment. Look out for the RED FLAG O DOOM

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Man, for an educator you'd think you would avoid setting up ridiculous premises, expecting us to accept them, then drawing down the debate to your level where it's most comfortable. This whole thing rests upon the drugs being unnecessary because you perceive his actions not to warrant them. Calling his outbursts mere 'temper tantrums'. Is that your call to make? Do you really KNOW his level of insubordination and non-cooperation in prison as defined by 'throwing chairs and spitting'?

I also like how you went ahead and assumed positions for 4 different types of people, I assume cleverly accounting for all possibilities. The reasonable and simplest answer you call naive, while the conspiracy positions you call informed.

I would tell you to get real, but then that would involve joining reality.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

It is easy to dismiss professional misconduct in the health care and prison industries with an assertion of "conspiracy theory." There is a long history of abuse in the psychiatric profession that is available to anyone with an interest in the topic. It is the kind of reality that you might find eye-opening.

As I pointed out above, manacles would have been a more humane way to address Loughner's rambunctious conduct.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

why is it that none of your options include "[person a] recognizes that some drugs help mentally ill people"?

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

Cos that would kill the schtick.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Unfamiliarity with the degrading aspects of drug "treatment" can easily lead to such a conclusion. In this case, "helping" has a dual edged quality. If the drugs succeed in making Loughner presentable for trial, he stands a good chance of facing the death penalty. He would be "helped" into an early grave.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

(I'm paraphrasing the above reply)

Oh no! You hold an erroneous belief! But it is not your fault, fair naif, for you are simply experiencing the underwhelming sensation of ignorance. You see if you were smarter, you would hold my view. Why do you support the death penalty?

In B4 BUT THE DRUGZZ THEY HELP MEEEEEEEEE!

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

I like the way you use Charlatan.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

I would not recommend using the word in the presence of a psychiatrist. It tends to precipitate a psychotic episode.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Uncle Fester?!

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I think we can agree that the APA is insane. :)

[awdrey-gore.livejournal.com]

People who are in-the-know with respect to charlatan practice have different reasons for their positions.

People in the know with respect to "charlatan practice" are Szasz acolytes and mostly conspiracy theorists. Which are you, I wonder?

Does a temper tantrum really warrant an evaluation of being a danger?
At this point I know you are doing nothing but troll. Cite a single case wherein anyone anywhere in the USA was put on a severe medical regimen just because of a temper tantrum. Just one.

And be specific and offer as many details as you can because your hilarious attempts to pass off Kendra's Law as sinister means of drugging perfectly innocent people against their will is still fresh in my brain. Because if you can't back up these extraordinary claims with even the most basic of evidence, I'll just back to ignoring your gimcrack posts.

ETA: Just out of curiosity, do you have a record of the number of times that Lougher has lost his shit when the court was not observing him? Nope, sorry, that was a loaded question because his daily caretakers aren't part of the equation. Unless Loughner is the most special paranoid schizophrenic ever, he acts out when he is not in court - it is the nature of his disease. Yes, disease. Deal with it.

Here are the options available to those who have undertaken Loughner's daily care:

--Reactively restrain him in a defensive and possibly offensive manner when he has a "tantrum." Do this every time he violently acts out, leaving contusions at the least, broken bones at the worst, because violent paranoid schizophrenics never go down easy. Doing this will physically harm him every time but it doesn't interfere with his brainwaves beyond any damage he may take to the head in a scuffle. He would also have to receive palliative care in the form of opiates that have their own addictive problems.

--Continually restrain him in a straight jacket or bed restraints sans meds. This might keep him safe if he did not fight the restraints like a helldemon, but the impact on his already fragile mind would be catastrophic. It would be the worst torture, in my opinion.

--Sedate him so that until decisions can be made about his final care, he is no longer a threat to others and his behavior will not cause his body to be harmed by the reactive violence that takes place to restrain him.

There is no good answer Sophia, but I would love to know how YOU specifically would handle a case like Loughner. You've quoted Szasz to the point that I wonder if you think Loughner's schizophrenia, atheist that he is, is a part of some religious expression that modern medicine has demonized with the label of schizophrenia. Since you have such issues with how the situation is being dealt with, tell us all how you would deal with a violent, paranoid schizophrenic who shot people to death and is pharmaceutically non-compliant who still acts out violently in care and in court.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

I freely admit to having read a number of the works of Thomas Szasz. I also have students, friends, and relatives with extensive experience with psychiatry. People who defend charlatan practice usually have an emotional investment in it.

The temper tantrum reference alludes to the justification that is reported in the first cited article. I did not mean to imply that it was only one incident that was used to rationalize forced drugging. There are other ways to restrain a prisoner besides doping them up on damaging drugs. Loughner may have been given opportunities and inducements to throw tantrums. I am familiar with the tricks of the trade. If you had some such familiarity, you would not have such an antagonistic attitude.

Kendra's Law was not intended as a way to lower the bar on evaluations of the threat posed by patients, but it has been implemented as such.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I would consider forced drugging to be a sign of authoritarian tendencies, either conservative or liberal.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Yes prisons are authoritarian situations where people have their rights taken away, congratulations on figuring that out. ;)

[fornikate.livejournal.com]

i'm cool with it.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Your sentiments reflect the majority opinion.