The Mental Capacity Act in practice -emancipated or insentient?

feguard

8 years ago, the Mental Capacity Act was, supposedly implemented to provide a  ’ legal’ framework, to empower, and emancipate,   the incapables’ ‘decision making’.

But has it?

No. See House of Lords Select Committee report.

The Local Authority strategy, to remove all suspected ‘incapables’ to private for profit state care, increased rapidly, after 2007.

Studies show, these removals   were at first,  often illegal, without reference to the Court  of Protection. http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2012/10/30/where-social-workers-are-going-wrong-on-the-mental-capacity-act/

Whereas, now the Court rubber stamps  removal.

As analysed in previous posts, it is functionally, very difficult, to legally comply with s1 of the Act, and, empower the vulnerable.

And this has not happened, as the Act is being used to remove all decisions from the vulnerable and their parents.

From this, we can only  conclude, the real reason for the Act,  was to enforce  private profit institutional  ‘care’ for life away from family and effectively any real community.

Such care, would have huge benefits, for  the government, and LAs.

The LA, gets the old, disabled, and vulnerable off their books, eradicating the need for adult care.

Social workers, are used as enforcers, and then, replaced by care managers, who merely oversee private provision they have commissioned and would be liable for if inadequate.

LA budgets, do not then, have to be used on continuing   home support.

Private profit care, benefits the government,   as,  public money,  available, to the disabled and their families, under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Act 1970, can instead be used by venture capitalists, and businesses, to make profit, from social care,  fuelling  economic growth.

LA budget cuts, purporting to reduce the UK deficit, actually increase it, by payment of huge sums to private care providers .

The market for such care, is  ever extended, now to those which learning disabilities, and behavioural problems, to maximise the potential consumer base.

Capacity/ability to make a decision is assessed routinely, and covertly.

The Care Act 2014, implemented last month, dilutes ‘capacity’, to ’substantial difficulty’ in being involved in decisions.

As   assessments   are   routine, they are  based on age, or label, and  therefore MCA illegal, but who, or, how, could anyone complain?

This approach is highly discriminatory, and, marginalises, and stigmatises   certain groups of people, by questioning their ‘decisions’, and, removing their right to make them.

The state can then enforce any care, and medication, they want.

For those living in residential care, rather than for emancipation, the MCA  is being used, to justify tick- boxed regulation, and unchecked, perfunctory at best, standards of ‘care’, and, defend practioners.

The Supreme Court   decision Cheshire West   [2014] UKSC 19, graphically illustrated, how functionally unworkable the   MCA is, in relation to the many deprivation of liberties, that take place daily, in private care.

And caused   a bureaucratic nightmare, which will do nothing to empower the vulnerable, but simply increases the box ticking of already overburdened, understaffed, underpaid care workers.

It has been translated operationally, to a Review of the Care Provision annually of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards with a Relevant Registered Person, who is generally not a family member but similar to an IMCA trained and appointed by a charity, but paid for by the state and the Adult Services. Most Care Providers have computer software to deal with the matter as part of their ‘best interests’ check list.

As,   with deprivation of liberties, any attempt to actually apply the Act, to the myriad of individual daily decisions, in residential care, as is required by the Act, would also be functionally impossible, particularly, in our, all for profit, zero hour care factories.

Usefully, the court practice is to remove a person’s capacity to make all future decisions, despite this being illegal under the MCA.

This assessment, to add weight to it will often be by a psychologist, pursuant to section 48 MCA.

But can be anyone.

And a s48 MCA application is granted to the LA on merely showing they suspect a person incapable.

The standard assessment order will decide, if a person has the capacity to litigate, make decisions as to where he lives, the care he receives, and the contact he has with members of his family

These are not decision specific,   and, other than for LA funding, often, need not be made, so  illegal under the MCA.

As mentioned in the post, ‘Standard Capacity Assessments Stephen Hawing would fail’, the standard LA assessment, is also apparently illegal.

And, does nothing to maximise capacity, other than tick a box on ease, comfort of circumstances, and, appears not to   encourage joint decision making.

We have no figures of how many, if any, pass the capacity test.

If an assessor, were to find a person   capable, he is proving his pay master LA, who suspected incapacity, and, applied to court, wrong.

The standard Record of Assessment,   will also certify, that a person, is unlikely to regain capacity, condemning him, to never, being allowed to make a decision again.

Providing  care providers, with a blanket incapacity assessment for all future decisions, again illegal.

Worse still, capacity, appears to be being equated with sentience.

As shown in Cheshire West judgement.

Where the court of appeal, and minority of the Supreme Court, held that a person can only be deprived of his liberty, if he has the capacity to understand and object to his situation, ie be aware of it.

Even Lady Hale eluded to ‘incapacity’, being equal to unawareness, by her words

’ An unconscious or sleeping person may not know that he has been locked in a cell, but he has still been deprived of his liberty.

A mentally disordered person who has been kept in a cupboard under the stairs (a not uncommon occurrence in days gone by) may not appreciate that there is any alternative way to live, but he has still been deprived of his liberty’.

Care workers are encouraged to believe, these very vulnerable scared lonely people with communication issues are actually incapable of any awareness or feeling.

As a support worker, horrifyingly  remarked to me ,

‘Would Issy know what was happening, if 5 strangers removed her from home ?’

The state is now allowed by the subversion  of the MCA, to create  the perfect commodities.

And,  the perfect   victims.

 

The Mental Capacity Test- The Fool of Law ?

Rule of Law is the basis of our freedom and democracy.

It is our protection from state exploitation and tyranny.

It provides our laws must be certain.

Our main and most authoritative source of law is an Act of Parliament.

Parliament must therefore ensure Acts are certain.

That means sufficiently well drafted to be implemented without the need for too much discretion and/or subjectivity on behalf of the executive and/or the judiciary.

If  not, the state will be given too much unauthorised ( not sanctioned by Parliament), unpredictable power over an individual.

An Act, historically, commenced with a paragraph describing its ‘sprit and intendment’, known as a Preamble.

The Preamble’s function  was to explain the purpose of an Act to assist interpretation and application.

Preambles are now rare as thought historic and superfluous .

But The Mental Capacity Act commences with 5 overarching principles in the style of a Preamble but drafted as section 1.

Worse still this section is the main substance of the Act and its overriding principle the agreed by Parliament giving of autonomy to an individual so that decisions he was capable of making were not made for him but it is written in the style of a preamble.

And then the Act dangerously in breach of the rule of law gives no  further specific provisions enacting the main purpose of the Act in s1 principles.

But instead places complete reliance on a lengthy  Code of Practice.

This is poor drafting as it leaves the Act vague and therefore ripe for executive bureaucratic discretion and gives too much unfetted power over the individual.

From a general s.1 embedding autonomy and making a capacity assessment a last resort.

The Act  says no more on these crucial matters other than in the Code of Conduct.

Leaving the purpose of the Act and how it should be implemented to a Code of Conduct.

The  effect of this  is, there no law to  implement the purposes Act in s1.

Instead, s 2 and 3, move straight to define what a person has to prove, to avoid having their ‘capacity’ removed.

By anyone’s standards, a strange way to draft an Act promoting autonomy.

Section 2, is stage one of the capacity assessment.

‘Capacity’ is rather unhelpfully defined, in the Code of Conduct,

as ‘the ability to make a decision’.

Stage one of the capacity test, consists of a finding, that a person has,

‘an impairment of, or disturbance in, the functioning of the mind, or brain’.

And gives a non-exhaustive, expansive list of examples. mental illness, learning disabled, now 375, including intoxication by alcohol and effect of medication.

But avoids any  definitions/explanations, of these listed classes.

Or the blood sugar, intoxication levels needed to impair or disturb, or indeed, any definition of impairment, or disturbance, or the degree needed to satisfy the test.

This level of vagueness, expansiveness and inherent subjectivity, can only be deliberate..

And, one wonders how anyone, could manage, not to fail  stage one.

Is there any evidence, that anyone has ever passed it?

This means section 3, stage two will almost always be automatically moved on to.

This undefined impairment/disturbance, must be sufficient, to cause the person to be unable to make a particular decision, at the relevant time, when it is needed.

A person is unable to make a decision and therefore, ‘incapable’ if he fails any one of the following;

Firstly, if found that he,

‘cannot understand information given’.

‘Information given’ is ‘defined’ in the Code of Practice,

‘as information relating to the nature of the decision’.

This leaves the assessor and us to speculate, as to what this ‘information’ might be, and how it is to be imparted to the person who is already suspected of being mentally ‘incapable’.

Consider, for example, the information, that needs to be given to  the suspected ‘incapable’, to make the usual decisions, required in a standard court capacity order;

Which consists of, whether they want to represent themselves in the Court of Protection, where they want to reside, who they want to see, and, whether, they can decide all their own personal welfare decisions.

This  involves the need to impart, a potentially limitless amount of information to the person being assessed capable of making them.

And not only does the assessor need to impart all this information,

S3 (2)   also requires him, to present this information,

‘in the best way to maximise a person’s capacity’.

So, all this must warrant a vague, impossible, Herculean feat.

But it gets even worse, the poor assessor, is then given, the  even more difficult/impossible task of judging if, a person has  understood all this information.

How can an assessor possibly to this ?

How can he possibly  judge what another person has understood ?

Particularly, if that person has communication difficulties.

If a person says yes, I understand, what it means to act for myself in the court of protection.

Unlikely per se, even if he had already experienced it, and assuming, he had been provided with all the information, relating to the decision, whatever that might be.

Yes, I know all that is involved in looking after my personal welfare, and, have considered, all the information relating to all these decisions, another imponderable.

Will this be sufficient, for an assessor, to be satisfied, a person has indeed, understood, the infinite nuances of such information?

Remember, the assessor, is not allowed by the Act, to make judgements, solely on a person’s behaviour or presentation.

If a person, passes that part of  the test.

How can only be imagined.

The assessor must then decide, that the person is able, to retain, all this mass of information,

‘long enough to be able to make a decision’.

The Act, does not  stipulate for how long, nor why, this  is specifically made necessary.

As presumably, a person normally indicates his decision, as soon, as he has understood the information, in answer to the question, that requires that decision.

And presumably, the ability to understand this question, by necessity, would need the retention of this information for the required time.

But not only is the assessor charged with assessing the length of ‘memory’ required.

The assessor has to then go on to decide if a person’s   ability,

‘to use and weigh up the information in making the decision’, is sufficient.

Wow.

This will involve the assessor having the skills, and information, even experts, in the plethora of areas, involved in the decisions, might not possess.

Inter alia, statistics on success of litigants in person, caring for yourself, over being cared for by the state, the psychological effects of seeing certain people, or not, the advantages of a particular residence now, and, in the future.

And, how can an assessor, possibly judge what should be ‘evaluated’, in such decisions.

The assessor himself is unlikely to be able to. Who would?

And, more crucially, whether  the  person with communication difficulties, has ‘evaluated’ them properly?

On what objective criteria, will an assessor’s judgement be based, and, what is to be evaluated?

Such an evaluation, would require an objective evaluation of a sea of information, and unknown future imponderables, and expert knowledge.

But, even more crucially, such evaluation, relies on, and requires, that the person being assessed, has extremely good communication skills, to be able to impart to the assessor, how he evaluated his decision.

How could a person, suspected of mental incapacity, with normally very poor, if any, communication skills, be expected, to explain his evaluation of all this required information?

This must therefore, on analysis, be found to be a farcical, unworkable assessment.

And, grossly unfair on the assessee.

Particularly as in law he is only forced to be assessed because of his disability.

Yet, such assessments, have already removed the autonomy of over a million, with a potential for millions more, for life.

Assessments, that do not even satisfy superficial scrutiny, are removing, our citizens rights to make their own decisions.

Worse still, the Care Act 2014, now weakens the definition of ‘capacity’, to having ‘substantial difficulty’ being involved in specific decisions.

And, this ‘substantial difficulty’ test is the same as the ‘capacity test’ definition in the MCA.

So anyone can assess, and the ‘assessment’, is effectively totally subjective/unworkable.

Terrifying confirmation, that the state is determined, to remove the autonomy of anyone they want to.

Two Acts, provide and dilute, the ultimate weapon of control, and, create a  means to use anyone, as a commodity for private profit.

Has anyone ever passed such a capacity/ ‘substantial difficulty’ test?

comment from internet 2019 below

I had training with a consultant recently which said from a BMI of 13 or less she would never consider them to have capacity ..

.

Click to access GUIDETOMEDICALRISKASSESSMENT.pdf

No one survives a  MCA capacity test

 

Law on Capacity, ‘To Assess or not to assess, that is the question’.

The Mental Capacity Act was, supposedly, passed to empower  the vulnerable, to make their own decisions.

A ‘capacity’ assessment , must therefore,  be a measure of   last resort , as it removes a person’s autonomy in respect to a particular decision.

And, in any event, should only be  undertaken, as and when a decision, ‘needs to be made’.

This is the law as provided by the Act which states

A person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision unless all practicable steps to help him to do so have been taken without success

If a person can with help, make a specific decision,he will not be incapable of making it.

And a capacity assessment and removal of that decision from him will be illegal.

so how does fit in with the latest court ruling 2019, of ‘fluctuating    capacity’, being sufficient to remove all decisions from the incapacitated under MCA ?

iT IS ILLEGAL as not authorised by MCA, which states that capacity must be maximised at time of assessment

The Act also provides that prior to an assessment everything  practicable  must be done to enable a person to make the decision himself.

This requires, that the person proposing to assess, knows as much about the assessee as possible, to know how  a person’s capacity can be maximised.

So basic capacity facilitators, such as the assessee’s ease, a familiar environment, no illness, or distress ,should be ensured and the assessor should  not be a stranger.

And, the decision if possible, be made jointly with the suspected incapable, before the dynamic is changed, by a formal capacity assessment, which by its nature removes the incapable from the decision making process.

The Act shows the importance of protecting a person’s autonomy as it is made the first overarching principle of the Act;

‘A person must be assumed to have capacity unless it is established that he lacks capacity’

In addition, the MCA Code of Practice states in para 4.4 provides,

‘An assessment of a person’s capacity must be based on their ability to make a specific decision at the time it needs to be made, and not their ability to make decisions in general ‘

Yet everyone now breaches this law by declaring people ‘incapable’.

So the first thing to be established is what decision,

Does it appear a person has lost the capacity to make?

And what is the evidence of this?

If a person has all his life, decided, what to eat, where to live, and who to see.

And is still doing this, then, he is not having difficulty making these decisions.

So why then, need his capacity be questioned, in respect to these decisions, as it is now, daily by Local Authorities, particularly, if he has a learning disability, or is autistic ?

The Act also states, there must be evidence of a difficulty making a decision, at the time the decision needs to be made ?

Again, Local Authorities, do not appear to need to explain,  why they have decided a decision ‘needs be made’,  at a particular time, other than to fund services  at 18, and/or, due to exaggerated/non existent safeguarding concerns.

Any presumption of incapacity, before a test, is illegal, and, ipso facto excludes, a person from the decision making process, and prevents the steps  legally needed to maximise capacity.

Without these the test is unfair, illegal..

And the empowering nature of the act subverted.

Its raison d’etra ,thwarted.

Merely because a particular decision is unwise, or other, than one, the assessor would have made, or makes care easier, does not make a person incapable of making it.

And the incapacity, must be directly linked/ connected  to an ‘impairment of mind’.

If a person, has already been making, the same decisions all his life, and, there is no new impairment, for example he is autistic, or learning disabled from birth , then, why would he suddenly, be unable to make these decisions ?

And, how could they be due to an impairment, he had had when he was making them .

If, indeed, autism can be classed as such an  ‘impairment’.

And, it must be remembered, that just because a person is unable, or unwilling, to make a decision,this does not mean, they are not capable of making it.

Hamlet was not incapable.

The reality is, that the mental health system is awash with people, who are assessed as ‘incapable’, for no other reason than they  are labelled with one of the 375 mental disorders now available.

And most do not even engage with their assessment, and their assessment is generally an illegal blanket ‘incapable’ of any decision assessment for life.

Autism Epidemic the betrayal of the ‘different’ for profit.

What is autism?

The truth is startling.

No one has a clue.

There is no pathology, no gene, no biomarkers and little understanding .

It is an intrinsic part of an individual’s personality.

And as such, many maintain is not an ‘impairment of mind’, under the Mental Capacity Act.

And, it was not until recently  a mental disorder under the Mental Health Act.

It is a spectrum, we are all on.

Like quantum mechanics, it does not exist, until observed and labelled.

Only 70 years ago, it was merely a Greek word, meaning, ‘absorbed in self’.

Associated with loners, high intelligence, gifts, cold mothers, and, the children of academics.

Newton, Mozart and Einstein, who at 7, constantly repeated certain phrases, all showed autistic traits.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/3326317/Albert-Einstein-found-genius-through-autism.html

On reading Plato’s description of Socrates, he could well have been autistic.

A study by University of Sterling this year shows it is associated with creativity

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/22/autism-creative-thinking-study?CMP=share_btn_tw

Yet a ‘lack of imagination’ is one of its main diagnosis criteria.

Read this lady’s account of the genius of her autistic  son.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Spark-Mothers-Nurturing-Genius/dp/0812983564

Scientists have urged it should not be treated as a disability but a different way of thinking with advantages

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2056941/Autism-advantage-Valuable-traits-include-exceptional-memory-visual-skills.html

Here a mute autistic writes how wrong the experts are about him.

https://growingkidstherapy.wordpress.com/2017/01/05/diagnosis-disruption-debunking-the-myths-of-non-verbal-autism/

But today in the western world autistics are made the biggest cash cows .

anhttp://www.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2014/06/Autism.aspxd educate,

They cost the UK more than cancer,or heart disease.

Yet a recent study shows, they are 2.5 more likely to die prematurely in comparison to the rest of the population.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/308160.php

Why, as autism is not a physical illness ?

Is it because the autistic are huge pharma cash cows, earning billions for the autism and pharma industries, yet  receive little or no proper medical treatment.

And as a lucrative commodity the  number of autistic in the UK has increased ten fold, in the last 15 years, and 50% in the last 5 years.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/9160322/Number-of-children-with-autism-soars-by-more-than-50-per-cent-in-five-years.html

In the US, study shows, it will cost one trillon billion dollars by 2025 http://consumer.healthday.com/cognitive-health-information-26/autism-news-51/u-s-autism-costs-could-reach-1-trillion-by-2025-study-701789.

Surveys increase the epidemic.

htmlhttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-13/autism-rate-nearly-doubles-on-paper-after-a-survey-is-changed

So there is an awful lot of money to be made out of autism.

It is likely, some disorders diagnosed as ‘autism’ is not but reaction/effect of vaccines- compulsory in USA, put under autism’s vague umbrella.

View at Medium.com

Autistics are now assessed,  as intellectually disabled, based unfairly/discriminatory on adeptive skills alone, irrespective of IQ.

And then  taught, medicated, and treated, as if mentally retarded.

This  allows inappropriate ‘special needs’ non- education, drug administration.

And, worse still, autistics being assessed, at 18, as being ‘incapable’ of  the most basic decisions, as to who they have a relationship with or where they live.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 is being  illegally enforced, allowing the state to declare the autistic,  incapable of making any future or past decision.

Yet, educationally, autism, is a conditioning disability, not a learning one.

Autistics are not intellectually disabled.

Autistic children’s  IQs, have been shown, in recent research by Swansea University, to be underestimated, as IQ tests are designed for non autistic children.

https://finolamoss.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/profitable-retardation-of-the-autistic/

They merely have a different perception of reality, and therefore think, and  learn differently.

Autism, is explained and defined, as a difficulty with social imagination, communication, and interaction.

A  vague, expansive, meaningless definition.

What is social imagination ?

Autistics, once labelled, are perfunctorily and simplistically stereo typed, with little regard to the individual.

All like routine, all have sensory problems, all do not look you in the eyes, all hate transitions, all do not understand others emotions, and, the most damning  judgement, all are insentient, under the Mental Capacity Act.

And all this is wrong and discriminatory.

The different, are penalised, because they do not behave socially, learn or communicate as they should.

This, and, ever more blunted psychological diagnostic tools, make it, far too easy to label, a person, who merely, has an unknown, educational, communicational, and social ‘difference’ from the norm.

The diagnosis based on adeptive skills and misdiagnosed intellectual disability.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/health/research/new-autism-definition-would-exclude-many-study-suggests.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&hp

With such a cash cow, is it any wonder, more autistics are sought.

By awareness campaigns, in their best interests.

The latest is, to harvest autistic girls, on the basis, too few are being diagnosed.

Yet, the proportion of autistic girls, accords with the biology that the X chromosome masks the disorder in a female.

Who is merely a carrier of the ‘autism’ gene.

And a female will need both her X chromosomes to be affected, so an affected X from each parent, to manifest autism.

So is 50% less likely than a male to be autistic.

Mandatory  Universal Autism Screening has been called for.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/309783.php

The ‘at risk’ who might not be autistic are sought, and research into genetic causes and biological processes paid for presumably to market drugs and vaccines but specific genes cannot be found.http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/308185.php

It can now supposedly be detected in babies and now before symptoms appear.

http://www.disabledgo.com/blog/2017/02/autism-detectable-in-brain-long-before-symptoms-appear/#.WKYEtIXXJjo

An autism label has already proved devastating for over a million in the UK.

Who with America, form an epidemic in the western world, but not   in the East, and, autism, is virtually non-existent in the third world.

The, ‘in the know’, late developing eccentrics, with private means, can avoid detection, and labelling, research proper education, and, like the characters in the New York specialist school in the book, ‘Bring in the idiots’, become high flyers, in literature, and technology.

But not, the ever increasing majority, destined, to be cash cows, for the burgeoning autism industry.

Which spans charities, pharmaceutical, educational special needs, NHS, social care, and independent living.

74% are on anti-psychotic drugs, and, imprisoned for life in NHS ‘treatment’ centres, or ‘independent’ away from family living.

http://www.disabledgo.com/blog/2015/09/fears-that-antipsychotic-drugs-being-used-as-chemical-cosh-in-disability-care/?utm_source=DisabledGo+Blog&utm_medium=facebook

Autism is a social conduct development ‘disorder’ at most, and was not within the Mental Health Act until  recently.

It is not a mental illness.

But recent campaigns that autistics’ mental health was being neglected, enabled, autistic conduct to be perfunctorily diagnosed as separate mental disorders.

Even normal reactions of autistics to crowds, noise, muti stimuli has  now been labelled a separate disorder of Pathological Demand Disorder and Petitions supported by NAS have had it recognised in Scottish Parliament.

How can a mere facet of autism be recognised as a separate disorder, when this should have been appreciated as part of ASD and educated, treated cared for already ?

It serves to surreptitiously widens the net of cash cows by more diagnosis and will not improve care.

ASD has only be placed in the MHA fairly recently and is not a mental but a conduct disorder.

Continually government money is spent to show autistic are mental, the latest Cambridge and Coventry University report on their greater risk of suicide and depression January 2017.

https://www.learningdisabilitytoday.co.uk/study-launched-to-understand-why-autistic-people-may-be-more-at-risk-of-mental-health-issues.aspx

This is the worst form of discrimination and misrepresentation of the autistic and allows autism to be a mental disorder and other mental disorders to be added.

Each requiring profitable medication- OCD, psychosis, anxiety, depression, self-harm, OD, ADHD, and increasing the amount that can be claimed for their care.

https://www.autistica.org.uk/research/mental-health/

So they really are a useful, lucrative feed to the mental health industry and pharma.

How did this all happen? Is no one fighting for the autistic ?

In 2007, the National Autistic Society was the 8^th largest charity in the UK, rich with government funding, and, 177,000 per annum residential school placements.

But,  was, strangely, precluded by its trust deed, from researching into the causes of autism.

Its campaign for autism rights, embodied in the Autism Act 2009.

Resulted in worthless, Local Authority Guidelines.

Which need expensive, complex, costs risky judicial reviews, by individuals to enforce.

To date I know of none.

So Local Authorities can ignore the Act.

As shown LA’s adult services policy of non-provision of specialist care.

But, the LA, commission, and the NHS pay, independent living providers, like the National Autistic Society, Autism Care UK, on the ‘severity’ of the individual’s disability.

Using the money available for disabled, and  family support, under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Act1970.

But now neither are given an option except private enforced secret care.

The autism industry, and venture capital, profit from creating ‘difference’.

The autistics have lost their lives, and, we have lost our visionaries, and eccentrics.

See here how a definition of autism allows  the state and care workers to decide all your decisions for life even when you are obviously capable and high functioning.

See fate of this 20 year old diagnosed  as autistic at 18, when Dimensions who own independent living support and the LA  got involved in her life. And an LA behavioural psychiatrist who decided she was MCA incapable of deciding, who she had relationships with and where she lived- terrifying stuff, happens nowhere else in the world.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2016/4.html

Read here latest book dispelling the myths about Autism by Steve Sliberman, The Legacy of Autism and the Future of Neurodiversity

http://www.npr.org/2016/09/09/493148713/neurotribes-examines-the-history-and-myths-of-the-autism-spectrum

Despite or because of being made cash cows a study revealed they die prematurely

Dr Hirvikoski says that she was “shocked and horrified” at the results.

Her team found that the mean age of death of somebody with autism was 54 – compared with 70 for the general population. For people with autism and a learning disability, life expectancy was a mere 40 years.

 

 

 

 

Getting Out With Friends Together

Getting Out With Friends Together.

Unfortunately the photos and blog post were removed.