New Events

National

no events posted in last week

Blog Feeds

Public Inquiry
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005

offsite link RTEs Sarah McInerney ? Fianna Fail supporter? Anthony

offsite link Joe Duffy is dishonest and untrustworthy Anthony

offsite link Robert Watt complaint: Time for decision by SIPO Anthony

offsite link RTE in breach of its own editorial principles Anthony

offsite link Waiting for SIPO Anthony

Public Inquiry >>

Human Rights in Ireland
A Blog About Human Rights

offsite link UN human rights chief calls for priority action ahead of climate summit Sat Oct 30, 2021 17:18 | Human Rights

offsite link 5 Year Anniversary Of Kem Ley?s Death Sun Jul 11, 2021 12:34 | Human Rights

offsite link Poor Living Conditions for Migrants in Southern Italy Mon Jan 18, 2021 10:14 | Human Rights

offsite link Right to Water Mon Aug 03, 2020 19:13 | Human Rights

offsite link Human Rights Fri Mar 20, 2020 16:33 | Human Rights

Human Rights in Ireland >>

Lockdown Skeptics

The Daily Sceptic

offsite link Church Tribunal Clears Clergyman Who Called Trans Archdeacon ?a Bloke? Fri Mar 29, 2024 15:00 | Will Jones
A clergyman who called the Church of England's first trans woman archdeacon a "bloke" should not be punished, a disciplinary tribunal has ruled.
The post Church Tribunal Clears Clergyman Who Called Trans Archdeacon “a Bloke” appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link Climate Change is ?Slowing the Earth?s Rotation? Fri Mar 29, 2024 13:00 | Sallust
If you weren?t already gibbering in your boots at the prospect of devastating climate change, it's time to think again. Apparently, the movement of water from the 'melting icecaps' is slowing the rotation of the Earth.
The post Climate Change is “Slowing the Earth’s Rotation” appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link Hancock Fails to Have Bridgen Libel Case Thrown Out Paving Way for Full Trial Fri Mar 29, 2024 11:00 | Sally Beck
Matt Hancock, the ex-Health Secretary, has failed in his bid to have Andrew Bridgen's libel case thrown out after Hancock branded him antisemitic, paving the way for a full trial.
The post Hancock Fails to Have Bridgen Libel Case Thrown Out Paving Way for Full Trial appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link DEI Wokery is Swallowing Small Businesses Too Fri Mar 29, 2024 09:00 | C.J. Strachan
It's not only large corporations with hyperactive HR departments that are succumbing to efficiency-sapping wokery, says C.J. Strachan. Small and medium-sized enterprises are being swallowed up by DEI as well.
The post DEI Wokery is Swallowing Small Businesses Too appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link Are We Being Gaslit Over the Cause of the Princess of Wales?s Cancer? Fri Mar 29, 2024 07:00 | Melissa Kite
First Charles and then Kate ? it's hard to ignore the soaring cancer rate when two members of the Royal Family are diagnosed within weeks. But are we being gaslit about what's behind the surge, asks Melissa Kite.
The post Are We Being Gaslit Over the Cause of the Princess of Wales’s Cancer? appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

Lockdown Skeptics >>

Voltaire Network
Voltaire, international edition

offsite link Moscow attack reminds us of the links between Islamists and Kiev's fundamentalis... Tue Mar 26, 2024 06:57 | en

offsite link Failure to assist a people in danger of genocide, by Hassan Hamadé Tue Mar 26, 2024 06:32 | en

offsite link Yugoslavia March 24, 1999 The Founding War of the New Nato, by Manlio Dinucci Sun Mar 24, 2024 05:15 | en

offsite link France opposes Russian Korean-style peace project in Ukraine Sat Mar 23, 2024 11:11 | en

offsite link Voltaire, International Newsletter N°79 Fri Mar 22, 2024 11:40 | en

Voltaire Network >>

Mental Health Commission Refuses to Investigate Cover-Up of Medical Misconduct Despite ‘Smoking Gun’

category national | rights, freedoms and repression | news report author Wednesday April 14, 2010 20:14author by An tSionainnauthor email antsionainn at swanriver dot com dot au Report this post to the editors

Despite being presented with documented “smoking gun” evidence from medical prescription records obtained after lengthy FOI appeals, the Mental Health Commission today refused to initiate an investigation into a cover-up of medical misconduct by a centre's registerd proprietor in which a former MHC CEO and Inspector were complicit..

Article: 13.04.2010
Mental Health Commission Refuses to Investigate Cover-Up of Medical Misconduct Despite ‘Smoking Gun’ Evidence
Despite being presented with documented “smoking gun” evidence from medical prescription records obtained by a patient’s family after lengthy Freedom of Information appeals, the Mental Health Commission today refused to initiate an investigation into a cover-up of medical misconduct. We ask “Why has the Mental Health Commission, which is chartered to protect patients in the Mental Health System from abuses of their human rights and medical rights and for which services the people of the Republic of Ireland pay approximately Euros 17 million per year, refused to perform the public duties that it was intended to do?”

Mr Ray Mooney (MHC Director of Corporate Services), Dr Pat Devitt (MHC Inspector of Mental Health Services), and Mr Hugh Kane (MHC CEO) refused to initiate an investigation into a cover-up of medical misconduct that took place in early 2008. The cover-up started when Registered Proprietor Leo Kinsella, of the Cavan/Monaghan Mental Health Centres, made misstatements of material fact (when ordered to reply) to former Inspector Dr Rhona Jennings, which is an indictable offence under the Mental Health Act 2001.

The Mental Health Commission’s former CEO Brid Clarke and Inspector Rhona Jennings were informed of the medical misconduct in early 2008 by the patient’s next of kin, as well as by the patient’s solicitor at the time, Mr Peter Connolly, who works for the MHC and represents patients in Mental Health Tribunals.

As a result of the family’s complaint, Inspector Jennings required Mr Leo Kinsella, the Registered Proprietor of the Cavan/Monaghan approved centres (Cavan General Hospital and St Davnet’s Hospital in Monaghan) to respond to the allegation that Clozapine had been improperly administered at Cavan General Hospital on 10 July 2007 without the required CPMS registration with Novartis (the manufacturer) and required pre-medication work-ups including mandatory blood tests and recommended cardiologist’s assessment.

Due to the serious risk of agranulocytosis, tachycardia, and other potentially fatal side effects, Clozapine use is tightly monitored by its manufacturer Novartis through a Clozaril Patient Monitoring System (CPMS). This system (CPMS) includes requirements and recommendations for testing and monitoring the patient before and during Clozaril [Clozapine] treatment.

In his reply letter of 24 January 2008, to Inspector Rhona Jennings and solicitor Peter Connolly, Registered Proprietor Mr Leo Kinsella flatly denied that the medical misconduct at Cavan General Hospital had ever taken place. He wrote:

“Mr. [redacted] did not commence Clozapine until December 2007 in St Davnets Hospital. It was never administered while Mr. [redacted] was a patient in CGH.”

Solicitor Peter Connolly then notified CEO Brid Clarke on 6 February 2008, that he had sighted evidence of the medical misconduct in the patient’s Clinical Notes:

“I have read with interest, Mr. Kinsella’s reply of the 24th January 2008 a copy of which has been sent to Dr. Jennings Assistant Mental Health Act Inspector. With regard to the issue of Clozapine, I wish to include a copy note made by me when I attended St. Davnet’s on the 31/12/07. I reviewed [redacted]’s clinical notes and on an older cardex an entry appears for the 10/7/07 “Clozapine 125 mg 10/7/07 at 12”. [redacted] was a patient in Cavan at the time. I am not a doctor but the position to summarise my own medical experts is that Dr. Shaw does not rule out clozapine provided necessary pre work ups had been carried out. Dr. McCaffrey has stated that were [redacted] his patient he would have maintained him on his older anti-psychotics as he was stable and he expressed his view that clozapine was not appropriate given his heart condition and age profile given his diagnosis of treatment resistant schizophrenia I would be obliged if you would pass this letter and its contents to Dr. Jennings in this regard.”

In doing so, solicitor Peter Connolly, who is an “Officer of the Court” notified MHC that Clozapine had been administered to the patient at Cavan General Hospital without the necessary medical work-ups and that Registered Proprietor Leo Kinsella had made a misstatement of material fact, which is an indictable offence under the Mental Health Act 2001.

The documented facts are:

• The Novartis Confirmation for Clozaril [Clozapine] Treatment form records that the bloods were taken on 27/11/2007 and that the CPMS registration date was 30/11/2007. The patient’s family has independently confirmed this registration date with Novartis. In fact, this blood test and the CPMS registration date were months after the administration of Clozapine sighted by Mr Connolly in the clinical notes (10 July 2007), which had been previously reported to MHC.
• The patient was not registered with the CPMS at the time Clozapine (Clozaril) was first prescribed on 10/07/2007, and he had not had the mandatory blood work-ups.
• The Clozapine [Clozaril] administered in 10/07/2007 was prescribed by a locum doctor, who is not a registered psychiatrist. A mere locum is not allowed to administer this drug. In accordance with the mandatory CPMS (Clozaril Patient Monitoring System), only a fully trained consultant psychiatrist is allowed to do this.
• In administering the Clozapine [Clozaril] without the necessary registration or work-ups, the treating locum failed to act with ordinary care required of a consultant psychiatrist. The locum’s practices would not pass the “Dunne test” (Dunne -v-National Maternity Hospital [l981] IR 91), which is the standard used to determine if a questionable action reaches the level of medical misconduct.
• In addition, the patient - who has a cardiac history and underwent hole-in-the-heart surgery, which was only partially successful - had not been assessed for Clozapine [Clozaril] by a cardiologist, as recommended by manufacturer Novartis. His heart was not regularly monitored as recommended by Novartis, and his reported side effects, including heart pain and tachycardia, were dismissed by his treating locum as “wind.”
• Registered Proprietor Leo Kinsella had provided Inspector Jennings with evidence of an echo cardiogram, but this was administered by a technician only at Cavan General Hospital months before the first Clozapine treatment and was without benefit of the recommended cardiologist’s assessment or a much more thorough electro cardiogram (EKG). Registered Proprietor Leo Kinsella also provided a statement from a neurologist that an MRI test taken at about the same time had shown an ischemic brain change, but that this change in itself was not a contra-indication for Clozapine treatment. There was a significant time gap between these tests and the first administration of Clozapine on 10 July 2007. An even greater time gap of eight months occurs between these incomplete tests and the date on which Registered Proprietor Kinsella claims that the Clozapine had commenced.

Despite the fact that MHC received a letter from Solicitor Peter Connolly affirming that Mr Connolly had sighted a record of Clozapine administered in 10 July 2007, and despite Registered Proprietor Leo Kinsella’s contradicting misstatement that Clozaril (Clozapine) had not commenced until December 2007, Inspector Jennings and CEO Clarke took no further action in this matter; effectively ignoring a letter from an Officer of the Court (solicitor Peter Connolly) and a Formal Complaint And Request For Investigation filed by the family. These documents formally notified the Mental Health Commission that Registered Proprietor Leo Kinsella had committed indictable offences under the Mental Health Act 2001 by making such a misstatement of material fact to the Inspector.
The Mental Health Act 2001 stipulates that:

53.—A person who—
(a) obstructs or interferes with the Inspector while he or she is
exercising any power conferred by or under this Act, or
(b) fails to give any information within his or her knowledge
reasonably required by the Inspector in the course of
carrying out his or her duties,
shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable
on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both.

64-1(5) The Commission shall not—
(b) remove a centre from the Register, unless—
(i) it is of opinion that—
(I) the premises to which the application or, as the
case may be, the registration relates do not comply
with the regulations, or
(II) the carrying on of the centre will not be or is not
in compliance with the regulations,
or
(ii) the registered proprietor has been convicted of an
offence under this Part, or
(iii) the registered proprietor has failed or refused to furnish
the Commission with information requested by
it pursuant to subsection (8) or has furnished the
Commission with information that is false or misleading
in a material particular, or
(iv) the registered proprietor has, not more than one year
before the date from which the registration or
removal from the register would take effect, contravened
a condition under subsection (6).
(6) (a) The Commission may—
(i) at the time of registration or subsequently attach to
the registration conditions in relation to the carrying
on of the centre concerned and such other matters
as it considers appropriate having regard to its functions
under this Part,
(ii) attach different conditions to the registration of
different centres, and
(iii) amend or revoke a condition of registration.
(b) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a), conditions
attached to the registration of a centre may—
(i) require the carrying out of essential maintenance or
refurbishment of a centre or of specified areas within
a centre,
(ii) require the closure, temporarily or permanently, of a
specified area or areas within a centre,
(iii) specify the maximum number of residents which may
be accommodated in a centre, or in a specified area
or areas within a centre,
(iv) specify the minimum number of staff required to be
employed in a centre,
(v) require the introduction or review, as the case may
be, of specified policies, protocols and procedures
relating to the care and welfare of patients and
residents,
(vi) require the introduction or review, as the case may
be, of specified policies, protocols and procedures
relating to the ordering, prescribing, storing and
administration of medicines,
(vii) specify measures to be taken to ensure that patients
and residents are informed of their rights under this
Act.
(c) Conditions imposed under this subsection or amendments
and revocations under this subsection shall be notified in
writing to the registered proprietor of the centre
concerned.
(7) An application for registration shall be in a form specified by
the Commission.
(8) (a) The Commission may request an applicant for registration
or, as the case may be, a registered proprietor to furnish
it with such information as it considers necessary for the
purposes of its functions under this Part.
(b) A person who, whether in pursuance of a request or otherwise,
furnishes information to the Commission for the
purposes of this Part that is false or misleading in a
material particular shall be guilty of an offence unless he
or she shows that, at the time the information was furnished
to the Commission, he or she was not aware that
it was false or misleading in a material particular.


The family’s formal complaint and notice was initially sent to:
• MHC CEO Ms Brid Clarke,
• Inspector Rhona Jennings,
• The Medical Council Registrar Mr John Lamont,
• Minister Mr James Devins TD, and
• Minister for Health & Children Ms Mary Harney TD
Ms Laverne McGuinness, National Director of PCCC, and The Taoiseach, Mr Brian Cowen, TD were copied on correspondence ensuing from this complaint.

Later in June 2008, the patient’s sister followed up the complaint with current MHC Inspector Pat Devitt and notified him of the medical misconduct and cover-up. Inspector Devitt had access to all the files and letters that had previously been provided in early 2008 by the family, by Solicitor Peter Connolly, and by Registered Proprietor Leo Kinsella; and Inspector Dr Pat Devitt had on-demand access to all medical records at the Cavan/Monaghan centres. Inspector Devitt took no action.

On 1 April 2010, the patient’s family who had travelled from Australia to Ireland, personally presented the Mental Health Commission’s Director of Corporate Services Mr Ray Mooney with the “smoking gun” evidence of the medical misconduct, which had been previously ignored in 2008 by MHC’s refusal to investigate. This evidence included medical charts and a Kardex clearly showing that the treating locum had prescribed “Clozapine 125 mg 10/7/07.” It had taken the family two years of stonewalled Freedom of Information requests to HSE and numerous appeals to the Office of the Information Commissioner to obtain these records. Director of Corporate Services Ray Mooney promised the family to bring the released evidence to the attention of CEO Hugh Kane and Inspector Pat Devitt. The family pointed out that this evidence, which took the family years to uncover, was already available to the Inspector in early 2008 and that the family, as well as the patient’s solicitor at the time, had notified MHC exactly where the evidence of original misconduct could be found, and had informed MHC of the fact that Registered Proprietor Leo Kinsella’s misstatements to the Inspector were an indictable offence. The family informed Director of Corporate Services Ray Mooney that the Mental Health Commission’s former CEO Brid Clarke, as well as both the present and past Investigators, had refused to investigate medical misconduct after being notified by the patient’s solicitor Peter Connolly.

The family graciously agreed to await the outcome of Director Mooney’s correspondence and meetings with current Inspector Pat Devitt and CEO Hugh Kane on the released evidence, which Mr Mooney acknowledged was evidence of medical misconduct. Director Mooney had also acknowledged that it was in the Mental Health Commission’s power to close an approved centre, which had perpetrated such a cover-up by making misstatements of material fact to an Inspector of Mental Health Services.

Today, 13 April 2010, Director Mooney informed the family by facsimile that

“The present position is that your brother’s case has been reviewed on a number of occasions and no further action is deemed necessary at this time.”

Despite the fact that the former CEO Brid Clarke has been replaced by a new CEO Hugh Kane, the Mental Health Commission continues its dysfunctional “light handed” approach and appears incapable of disciplining the mental health establishment, which under the new Mental Health Act is meant to be respecting patient’s human rights and medical rights since 2001. MHC’s failure to live up to its obligations worsens at a rate only exceeded by their unacceptable excuses as reported in their latest 2008 Annual Report (available for download on their website) claiming that they need further funding. In reality, it is not a lack of money, it is a lack of accountability by Minister Mary Harney TD, who has failed to rein in HSE and has let her oversight of the Mental Health Commission slacken.

For further information on this story please contact:
antsionainn (at) swanriver.com.au

author by abbeylubber - nonepublication date Wed Apr 14, 2010 22:40author address author phone Report this post to the editors

A horrible tale and quite believeable in this dysfunctional country, but.... while there is plenty of suspicion generated by the circumstances as outlined, there is little real evidence of the type required to prove the alleged offences committed.

I wonder what reasons,if any, exist to ground the decision that no further action was necessary?

However, there are the bones of a good case but a real risk of failure from lack of hard evidence. How do you prove the validity of the entry sighted by the solicitor; who actually made the entry and can it be attributed unequivocally to any one member of the medical profession - especially when the whole issue of time and date of administration of the medication is vital - and likely to be contested or, as seems to be alleged, to be mis-stated or covered-up?

author by An tSionainnpublication date Thu Apr 15, 2010 13:34author email antsionainn at swanriver dot com dot auauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

After numerous FOI appeals, clarifications, and further appeals to the Office of the Information Commissioner we obtained the medical Kardex for that period which identified the Clozapine prescription that started on 7/10/07. We also have fax and email copies of all the correspondences and documents cited. The key evidence was presented in this form to MHC's Ray Mooney two weeks ago, who communicated same to the Inspector Pat Devitt and to the CEO Hugh Kane of the Mental Health Commission (we have Mr Mooney's signed letter indicting the CEO and Inspector were informed of the evidence we provided them). We would not have published the story without the means to substantiate it. If anyone is interested in publishing the story beyond IndyMedia, we would be happy to provide copies of substantiating documents.

This is only one chapter in the story of these abuses, which started with the patient's involuntary detention in 2003 under the old Mental Treatment Act 1945. The patient has already been released on order of the High Court when his detention under the old Act was found to be unlawful. The patient was then immediately re-detained under the new Act and, once again, ordered released by the High Court for injustices suffered undr HSE's maladministration. He was again immediately redetained on order of the registrar of the approved centre - something that should never happpen under the new Act.

There are previous cases of medical misconduct for which we also have FOI documented evidence, including a period of three weeks in 2003 when the patient was overdosed (15x the ordinary BNF dosage) with both of the anti-psychotics Clopixol and Depixol immediately prior to a Gardai interrogation. Despite requests from the next of kin, the registrar of the approved centre did not see that the patient was provided with legal counsel. The patient suffered permanent damage (somatic delusions) from the overdose, which created presumably false memories. These "delusions" are his memories of being injected improperly at night. In fact, this is exactly what happened during the three weeks! Even though these are memories of the past, HSE still claims they represent active "delusions" and use the patient's accounts of these memories as a pretext for the continued involuntarily detainment. Really, HSE - and now the Mental Health Commission - are practicing the darkest form of damage control.

author by Conorpublication date Thu Apr 15, 2010 16:03author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Wow, this is serious stuff.

Presuming everything here is correct, it is something that should be picked up by the mainstream.

Funnily enough, I met a man in his 40/50s less than a week ago in Dublin city centre. He was also a 'patient' and the things he told me about where he was kept made me teary-eyed. I also had a good friend years ago and his older brother was put in Portrane mental hospital. The shit that happened to him there still makes my skim crawl.

This is quite disturbing stuff and I dont doubt it for one second. These facilities are really bizarre because you can get locked up like a criminal, even if you have never committed a crime or harmed anyone.

author by An tSionainnpublication date Sun Apr 25, 2010 03:47author address author phone Report this post to the editors

We contacted MHC's Health and Social Care Regulatory Forum. Dereck Beattie and Lisa O'Farrell there are doing some wonderful work proposing a framework for public and service user involvment in health and social care regulation in Ireland.

The family hopes some of their experiences will be valuable to MHC's forum and can help shape future regulator policy that requires accountability and transparency from organisations such as HSE and the Mental Health Commission. Unfortunately they found these qualities to be distinctly lacking in these orgaisations.

One quote from the forum's report stood out in particular:

A further rationale for involving the public directly in the work of regulatory bodies is a need to counteract the risk of regulatory capture.

This can occur when the regulator becomes too close to the professionals or organisations being regulated, as described by Ashworth,

Boyne and Walker:

“In these circumstances, the capacity for independent judgement is undermined or lost, and information on performance is likely to be biased."

Such capture may be especially likely to occur when the staff on the two sides of the regulatory relationship are drawn from the same professional group, when ‘poachers turn gamekeepers’ (or vice versa), and if there is a long-term relationship between individuals in the regulatory and regulated organisations”..


As evident above, there are numerous reasons why involving the public and service users in the work of regulatory bodies is important, but the salient reason for doing so is so that Ireland can provide a world class public service. Wherever public services are considered excellent around the world, three characteristics are typically present, new professionalism, strategic leadership and citizen empowerment.


This very well states the current situation between HSE and the Mental Health Commission. In our recent meeting with Ray Mooney, the Director of Corporate Affairs for MHC we discussed this problem, and in particular brought to his attention the lack of transparency and accountability on the part of former CEO Brid Clarke, former Inspector Rhona Jennings, and current Inspector Pat Devitt for failing to investigate indictable offences against the Mental Health Act 2001 for which we had written corroborating testimony and documented factual evidence obtained through FOI.

In a recent fax, Mr Mooney stated that nothing needed to be investigated, despite the fact that is the responsibility of the Inspector to inspect violations of the MHA 2001 at approved centres and, if warranted, to initiate a process of revoking the registration of that approved centre. The process for how MHC arriving at this decision not to investigate was entirely opaque.

Mr Mooney's explanation to us was:

"The present position is that your brother's case has been reviewed on a number of occassions and no further action is deemed necessary at this time."

It is quite clear in this decision that MHC is prioritising the interests of HSE above those of service users whose rights have been violated by cover-ups of medical misconduct. MHC has accepted the false statements of registered Proprietor Kinsella., when he denied the occurrences of medical misconduct, even though a solicitor's statement to the Inspector verified such an occurrence in the medicatio records. Documented evidence obtained under FOI proves the proprietor's statements to the Inspector to be false. Such false statements constitute an indicatable offence under the Mental Health Act 2001. By not investigating, MHC has now become a partner in this cover-up.

It is all very well to establish a framework for involving service users and the public in health care regulation, but what is the point if the regulations that already exist are not enforced by the very organisations that are charged with that oversight? MCH's refusal to act - even when presented with proof of indictable offences - does not bode well for initiatives such as those proposed by the Health and Social Care Regulatory Forum. A sharp change in attitude by MHC is needed to align their actions with the forum's report's proposed reforms now.

author by children_of_lirpublication date Sun Apr 25, 2010 05:02author address author phone Report this post to the editors

It's clear that the Mental Health Commission 'has the back' of' HSE; and the Mental Health Commission's Health and Social Care Regulatory Forum is just Public Relations candyfloss, while warehoused mental health patients continue to suffer Mengelean human rights violations.

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of Minister for Health and Children Mary Harney TD to ensure the Mental Health Commission is independent. If it is not, then Minister Mary Harney should be sacked and a new Commission, CEO and Inspectorate appointed.

author by antsionainnpublication date Sun May 02, 2010 04:34author address author phone Report this post to the editors

One could imagine that the Mental Health Commission could easily accomplish the “Vision for Change” for Ireland’s mental health care simply by applying the law (MHA 2001) as it stands and revoking the registration of all of the approved centres that are found to be in violation of the Act. This would cause the closure of these centres and instantly liberate the funds necessary to establish community-based treatment in those catchment areas.

A smooth transition, however, would not be easily accomplished with such a radical approach. In some cases new community facilities would need to be purchased or leased. Additional staff to supplement community teams would need to be hired and trained– likely many of the staff from the closed centres would be candidates. Funds already insufficient for running the current system are not likely to cover the cost of preparation for transitioning community-based treatment. Neither is the current economic climate amenable to these expenditures.

So one asks how, if ever, a transition to the new vision would ever occur?

It’s no wonder there is institutional resistance to the ‘Vision for Change.’ So many prestigious careers and pinnacles of power depend on keeping things just as they are, with Ireland’s mental health system stuck in the Victorian era, if not the dark ages.

In the end, I can only imagine two factors that will encourage and speed a transition to accomplish the ‘Vision for Change.’

1) Widespread public reaction to the current level of spending by the Mental Health Commission (over Euro 17 million annually) which currently accomplishes absolutely nothing in justice or reform within the mental health system. Such reaction must demand that Minister Harney see to it that the millions annually spent on the Mental Health Commission actually obtain the intended reforms, not just pad the accounts of innumerable useless bureaucrats, Tribunal panels, barristers, and solicitors involved in administering the cumbersome Mental Health Act 2001.

2) A credible threat of EU sanctions against Ireland (possibly resulting from European Court of Human Rights cases) for failing to satisfy human rights standards (Article 5, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17 from its Convention for the Protection of Human Rights). The EU is already under considerable stress from the Global Financial Crisis, with Ireland being one of the member states threatened to be cut off. Together with the (up until now) economic advantages, the Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms espoused by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is one of the key elements in maintaining the cohesion of the European Union. Member states more economically viable may insist that Ireland more scrupulously uphold the articles and treaties to which Ireland is a signatory, and the Irish Judiciary may deem it in the interests of “general orderliness” to accept a less conservative and paternalistic attitude toward the care and treatment of those detained contrary to the Articles.

Like political and ecological activists, those in Ireland who express a world view disagreeing with the narrow minded and materialist interpretations of the current psychiatric establishment deserve the support of those of us who support human rights, and the right of each person to think their own thoughts and form their own opinions. Without mental freedom, what freedom do we have?

At the end of the day, those who champion freedom are all threatened by the asylum as gulag.

author by children_of_lirpublication date Mon May 03, 2010 16:08author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"At the end of the day, those who champion freedom are all threatened by the asylum as gulag."

Psychiatry as a tool of the State threatens each and every one of us (as documented in Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago). The psychiatric establishment has unbridled powers. The Mental Health Act 2001 is flawed in its implementation. This Act was meant to protect or ensure human rights, but is used to deny them.

author by children_of_lirpublication date Thu May 06, 2010 14:18author address author phone Report this post to the editors

If medication has been given to patients improperly at risk to their health, and this practice has not been recognised by or addressed by the Mental Health Commission, this might constitute an ongoing health risk to other patients who might be affected at the Cavan/Monaghan Mental Health Centres. The MHC has a code of practice suggesting “best practice” by doctors, which include addressing complaints quickly and professionally, however this complaint was apparently never addressed at all. There may be grounds for a class action for other patients at other centres who have similarly had their complaints of medical misconduct disregarded.

author by Despairingpublication date Thu May 06, 2010 17:10author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The sad (and sick) reality of the Republic of Ireland at the present time is that the "ruling elites" can commit crime (of all kinds and sizes) with impunity, and that nobody seems to know how (in practice) to "decommission" this deeply unhealthy and obnoxious social arrangement: even though there is an abundance of "law" in place for just such purposes.

Obviously, the Republic of Ireland legal profession now desperately needs to be PURGED of all the accumulating political and corporate corruption it has foolishly and irresponsibly been absorbing and embracing over the years.

Unfortunately, nobody here seems to have any idea of how -- in practice -- to successfully go about cleaning up our legal profession either.

To compound matters, most (close to all possibly) Republic of Ireland citizens appear to be either unaware of, in denial over, or feigning ignorance of, the MASSIVE problem which we actually have with our legal profession: even though -- for example -- our judges have in recent years very publicly jailed at least eight people (that I know of) who have tried to peacefully object to the "great (and unconstitutional and consequently unlawful) giveaway" of our oil and gas reserves, which have been valued at 5.4 trillion Euros.

Though it is the case that a number of small street protests have been tried, so far they appear to have produced just the odd "flash in the pan", and a few short-lived "false dawns" for some perhaps -- which is not by any means the fault of the street protestors concerned as far as I know, and much more likely to be the fault of all those who are so far completely failing to lawfully and peacefully protest in public: in the face of what they should sensibly be viewing as exceptionally serious and dangerous developments deep within our own society?

author by children_of_lirpublication date Sat May 08, 2010 06:08author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Despairing, It's clear to me that the mainstream media are trying to keep a cork on the People's unrest about everything in Ireland..

I have just published my condolences for Truth Warrior Elaine Boyle on Indymedia. I googled to get more information and found nothing about her apart from a link back to Indymedia. I am wondering if she ran away from the hospital because she had been threatened with involuntary detainment (Gulag). Does anyone know what happened? I'm shocked to the core about the loss of such a beautiful woman.

author by children_of_lirpublication date Tue Jul 13, 2010 01:35author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Does Head of HSE Prof Brendan Drumm's excuse sound familiar (please read below:)?

Carl O’Brien of the Irish Times reported in his article headed HSE Accused of Potential ‘Dereliction of Duty’ Over Foster Care:

“(Prof Brendan Drumm)... added that while it was crucial children were safeguarded, it would not be possible in the short term to fully comply with regulations and standards for children in care due to “legacy issues which emerged many years before the HSE was established”."

Related Link: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0713....html

Only a couple of weeks ago, Ombudswoman and Office of the Information Commissioner Emily O’Reilly accused the monolithic HSE of having “a culture of secrecy and legalism.” Eithne Donnellan writing for the Irish Times reported the Ombudswoman as saying:

"“I think there is a huge issue around the excessive secrecy and legalism of the HSE and it strikes me that it is a cultural thing within the HSE, and it is redolent of a body that looks not to the public interest, which is the only reason it’s there, and seeks at times to protect its own interests and that’s very wrong,""

Related Link: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0702/1....html

author by MLK8publication date Fri Oct 08, 2010 06:23author email KevinLewis321 at gmail dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

Don't forget the medical defence organisations/ medical malpractice liability insurance companies, especially the Medical Protection Society, and their corporate-sleaze law firms, like Richards Butler, would have had a hand in this - and all medical malpractice cover-ups- around the world.

Medical defence organisations are all part of the collusion and fraud we experience as malpractice patients from the medical profession. The loss of our rights has been legislated by our governments through tort malpractice laws. Medical boards and health commissions, together with personal injury lawyers, all collude with this system, each profiteeering in one way or another from the malpractice patient. Medical expert witnesses in the UK, for example, all collude with the Medical Protection Society ,or similar insurer , in writing reports that limit compensation to a victim or, as in our case, completely covering up shocking malpractice by falsifying records and photoshopping xrays.

We have to expose their secret processes and show the world how institutionalised corruption and cover-ups are effected by the very groups who claim to protect the public!

Bravo Indymedia for this website!

author by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite partypublication date Sun Oct 24, 2010 13:40author address author phone Report this post to the editors

In more than one sense. The problem is we have a sociopathic culture of the individual which has, literally, lost its balance, not least among our professional classes who have evolved into closed-shop white-collar causa nostra mafias for the self-serving of their restricted memberships.

The physicians have no incentive to heal themselves, by admitting they have no monopoly on mental health, any more than the legal eagles for all their jurisprudence have any monopoly on justice. Professional hijackers. And the spider of authority at the heart of their web is the professional media and its self-appointed experts who brook no argument that upsets their comfortable recieved wisdom. If we recognised that paying golfers in millions for strolling the fairway while keeping the cleaners of our hospitals on minimum wages is actually neither smart nor sane we might start to get towards a healthier, inclusive culture and society, and even have a chance of initiating that legendary structure those least capable of delivering it love to lecture us about,i.e. a slightly smart economy. One that doesn't splurge multiple billions on ever-growing arms investment while Haiti and Pakistan and so many other disasters are left to flounder on in neglect.

Our first mistake may just be our presumption that 'normal'(conforming to average or accepted norms)automatically confers the designation 'sane'.

Most of the evil geniuses of the world, whether political, financial, predatory sexual deviants, or whatever other stripe, are quite adept at maintaining fronts of propriety and social camouflage that elevates them above suspicion. The sociopaths of the untouchable corporate sector and their media cheerleaders who allow only the most superficial criticism employ skyscrapers full of graduates to keep the wheels of ignorance and complicity well greased. It does not remain as it is(deteriorating) by any accident.

Many of those who are incarcerated are less delude than those committing them, but also less capable of adapting to and profiting from a fundamentally sick society which alienates them by its inherent inhumanity of an ethic of competition which ultimately reduces us to dog-eat-dog conflict whose worst excesses, in the present generation, are comfortably outsourced to Fanon's wretched of the earth.

author by children_of_lirpublication date Sun Oct 24, 2010 13:53author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Where the hell was the Mental Health Commission? Charlie Maguire's doctor could have made him voluntary. Every year that they renew his detention, his doctor is required to offer him a choice to become voluntary. It had nothing to do with what Charlie's doctor was quoted as saying: "“If it were possible in some way to have the original charges processed so that he can remain on here as a voluntary patient, he would much appreciate it.” Charlie Maguire's doctor is misrepresenting the Mental Health Act 2001. Like many health professionals they still think and practice using the concepts of the old Mental Treatment Act 1945, which is no longer lawful. The doctor didn't care, he didn't care enough to look up the law [see below Mental Health Act 2001 - Section 16 (2) (g]).

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0025/sec...sec16

Related Link for Charlie ("The Hare") Maguire's obituary:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/obituaries/2010/102....html

author by Medical Defence Busterspublication date Thu Oct 28, 2010 06:56author address author phone Report this post to the editors

We’re a group of medical malpractice patients who have experienced cover-ups AND have been blacklisted/ ‘risk managed’ by medical malpractice insurance companies AND have had medical councils and various commissions fail to investigate the medical practitioners for the gross criminal negligence and professional misconduct that has occurred in our cases.

By posting this on your message board, we just want to warn genuinely helpful and important organisations like yours of something we’ve become aware of in recent times about how these insurers and their mates-in-high-places are censoring the internet. They are forcing the removal of content which might be critical and truthful about their corrupt practices and blocking searches on Google and some browsers. They must be paying kickbacks or using threats to remove them. They are also sending viruses of a very advanced nature to wreck websites and servers. We want to warn you to back everything up (including these postings) and ensure your Firewalls etc are in place. We think we know which U.K.-based medical malpractice liabilty insurer/ medical defence organisation (but operating in 30+ countries) is the ringleader is this kind of thug-mafia behaviour (but all of the insurance companies network with each other.)

The public should not be intimidated and know that if content relating to any issue about medical malpractice is TRUTHFUL and IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST it is not defamatory.

All the best to you and yours.

Number of comments per page
  
 
© 2001-2024 Independent Media Centre Ireland. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Independent Media Centre Ireland. Disclaimer | Privacy