In general it’s a bad idea to give unbridled power over disadvantaged populations to a demographic which tends to attract dysfunctional people.
.- The European Court of Human Rights has announced that it will take up a case considering whether Belgium wrongly allowed a woman to be euthanized on the grounds of “untreatable depression.”
Tom Mortier says that his mother, Godelieva De Troyer, suffered from depression for a majority of her life. Her doctor of over 20 years had refused her request for end-of-life treatment in 2011….
Mortier said in an ADF statement that his mother suffered from “a severe mental problem” and dealt with “depression throughout her life,” which had recently been worsened by a break-up with a boyfriend and feelings of distance from her family members.
“She was treated for years by psychiatrists, and eventually the contact between us was broken. A year later, she received a lethal injection. Neither the oncologist, who administered the injection, nor the hospital had informed me or any of my siblings that our mother was even considering euthanasia.”
The family was only notified of the procedure a day after De Troyer’s death, he said.
The psychiatrist who approved De Troyer’s euthanasia request, Dr. Lieve Thienpont, is already under investigation in another wrongful death allegation – that of Tine Nys, who was euthanized in 2010, two months after being diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome by Thienpont.
Thienpoint is believed by some experts to be involved in one-third of the nation’s psychiatric-based euthanasia cases.
Under Belgian law, euthanasia is permissible when there is a “medically futile condition of constant and unbearable physical or mental suffering that cannot be alleviated, resulting from a serious and incurable disorder caused by illness or accident.”…
So she spent her life on the psychiatric drug/bio-blame treadmill with all the success commonly attributed to programming a computer with a hammer, and when her authority figures finally admit failure, it’s a failure of their “patient” (or, synonymously, their patient’s “disease”), not their whole paradigm, and of course there is no conceivable alternative approach. Round peg, square hole: hammer until broken.
A tiny bit of humility and self-insight would be appropriate here.
In the 1970’s, psychiatry was on the rocks economically, it was losing out in competition with social workers and psychologists and non- medical therapists. Women were becoming increasingly aware that they’d be better off going to say a woman social worker than a male psychiatrist if they want to be understood or helped.
And at that point, and I trace this in “Toxic Psychiatry” – at that point psychiatry, at an organized level, including in the actual annual board meetings of the American Psychiatric Association, made a decision first to “re-medicalize”. To convince the public and the congress, which provides a lot of money to psychiatry and to convince the country that personal suffering is medical and biological, and, they made at the same time, after some debate, a decision to take more money from the drug companies, so the psychiatric association went from being broke to being wealthy within in a few years as a result of the support of drug companies which just pours in now. They won’t even open up their books to their own members. — Peter Breggin, Psychiatrist
Here’s is a condensed analysis of why this quackery has plagued the human race for so long. It has nothing to do with science, and for some psychiatrists, it has nothing to do with compassion either: