Deaths at St. Andrews Hospital, Northampton

St Andrews Hospital, Northampton.

An inquest into the death of 41 year old William Johnson who had lived in St Andrews for 18 years, heard 3 other men on his ward had predeceased him, exhibiting  similar symptoms and on the similar medication.

The first death was on October 23rd 2010, second March 31st 2011, third April 3rd 2011 and then, Mr Johnson on May 31st 2011.

4 deaths, half the 8 bedded ward, in just 8 months.

This ward was costing the tax payer £ 36,000 per week tax free.

I think this figure needs to be revised if this as I think it was  a locked/secure ward where the standard fee for mental treatment is now £13,000 per week.

So back then the figure was likely to be nearer a staggering £96,000 per week.

Why?

A Coroner, delivered a narrative verdict on Mr Johnson’s death.

And he refused to reopen the inquest.

The only other inquest into the previous deaths had recorded death by ‘natural causes’.

http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/health/health-news/appeal-for-st-andrew-hospital-deaths-report-to-be-public-1-6008003

Narrative verdicts were created in 2004, and merely describe the circumstances of a death not how it was caused.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_verdict

Dr Adewale Aromolaran, the senior doctor, in charge of the ward, when Mr Johnson died told the inquest,

He was not involved ‘in any discussions about the three previous deaths’,

Despite Mr Johnson’s similar medication and similar  physical symptoms.

Yet ‘Parallels’ between the deaths were noted by the inquest.

However, Dr Aromolaram was made aware, of the second, and, third deaths, on his becoming a member of the ward ‘team’.

But despite the quick succession of deaths, the last 2 men to die before Mr Johnson, dying within four days of each other, and Mr Johnson, ‘ vomiting large amounts of body salts.’

As his organs, slowly, filled up with a faeces impaction, a common condition in the autistic per se and a side effect of the high dosages of at least two different antipsychotics.

The doctor alarmingly gave evidence at the inquest that;

“There were no discussions. No talks at all about those deaths that I was involved in”.

All men were medicated with clozaphine which is known to cause constipation.

https://isepp.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/serioius-gastrointestinal-adverse-effects-of-clozapine.pdf

So, the managing doctor, of an 8 bedded ward where 3 deaths had already occurred in only 7 months before he became part of the ward management team was not informed of the first death, nor discussed the similarities of the second and third.

Nor, even, more crucially, did the doctor connect this latest death with the  two deaths, less than 2 months before William Johnson, who like William would have been presumably also ‘vomiting up large amounts of body salts’.

And, worse stilldespite a 3rd death, the hospital appeared to have taken no precautions, to find out the reasons, nor change the treatment of the others in the ward.

The medication was continued in the same high dosage to people incapacitated, throwing up  permanently in bed.

How can this be ‘treatment’ ?

And why did no one check on the physical health of these successively dying men as they were obviously seriously ill, throwing up and no doubt in constant agony.

The ‘hospital’ being paid a  small fortune likely over £80,000 per week.

The doctor gave evidence, that it had been impossible even to ‘try’ to examine Mr Johnson’s abdomen during a ‘routine’ health check as he would not let the examination proceed.

How likely is it that a man, bed ridden full of chemical coshes, vomiting up salt, would/ could/should  have not allowed a hand on his bowel area easily able to pick up such a serious impaction, which should in any event, should have been picked up from vomiting salt, the side effects of medication and three previous deaths in similar circumstances in less than 8 months ?

And if continual medication can be enforced why not a life saving examination ?

Did no one ask why all these men were vomiting up body salts ?

And, in any event, would such a ‘routine’ health check have checked for and detected an impaction. ?

And, why, was only a ‘routine’ health check, thought sufficient, when this man was obviously dying, in the same manner, in the same ward, as his 3 fellow ward occupants, in quick succession ?.

How many ‘routine’ health checks, are tick boxed refused, and, who actually performs them ?

On this basic safety/ care issue, staggeringly, Dr Aromolaram, was not aware  of any hospital strategy in place, if a health check was refused.

St Andrews glossy PR is on the internet http://www.standrewshealthcare.co.uk/sites/default/files/documents/12136_SAH_Quality%20Accounts%20A4%2044pp_V13%20(final_reduced%20size).pdf

The tax payer, was, paying at least £9,000 per week for this ‘treatment’, when charitable tax exemption is factored in.

We do not know the figures that is charged and paid for with our public money.

The Priory and Cygnet charge a minimum of £900 per night and up to £12,500 a week for an autistic 15 year old in an acute mental health bed.

See the structure of the provision and ward system here:

http://www.standrewshealthcare.co.uk/sites/default/files/documents/St%20%20Andrew’s%20Accounts%20for%202013%20to%202014%20(reduced%20size%20for%20web).pdf

St Andrews, had a turnover of £187.5million in 2013/14.

And, its chief executive at the time was earning £675,000 per annum.

https://finolamoss.wordpress.com/2015/08/01/st-andrews-healthcares-recycled-income/

The service was private, and commissioned and paid for by NHS England.

https://finolamoss.wordpress.com/2015/07/14/mca-incapables-perfect-pharma-and-research-cashcows-with-few-safeguards/

3 learning disabled, a day, died of inadequate NHS care, last year- that’s a staggering 1200, and, it was probably more this year.

Mencap dismayed by lack of progress to stop avoidable deaths of people with a learning disability

And, billions of profit has been made from their care.

Care Quality Commission Report 2014 see summary – Requires Improvement.

See summary. http://www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/1-102643363_coreservice_child_and_adolescent_mental_health_services_st_andrew_s_healthcare_scheduled_20150107%20%281%29.pdf

Since the deaths St Andrews have been forced to acknowledge the role medication might play

http://modernasylum.com/deaths-at-st-andrews/

 

 

Advertisements

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?

It-Is-Not-Torture-Small

No one survives a  MCA capacity test

 

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

Einstein_Tongue

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 story 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 8th 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.

 

 

 

 

autism6

Standard Capacity Assessments, Stephen Hawking would fail, without his box.

The mental health industry is awash with captive consumers, who have never even engaged with their capacity assessment under the Mental Capacity Act.

This is illegal but this is how it happens.

Let us explore, what happens, on the day your loved one, is declared effectively, a vegetable and loses his right to make any decision. for the rest of his life.

The psychologist/ assessor, the MCA does not stipulate who can assess capacity it appears anyone can, will attend the autistic and or learning disabled young adult or confused granny.

And, most likely be ignored.

The autistic may take an interest in their name, name tag, earrings, lipstick, pen, but then go back to their DVD, computer, or, just want juice.

The assessor may say words to the effect,

I have come to see whether, or not you want to represent yourself in court, so that your best interests/ what is best for you in the future, can be decided by an important person, called a judge’.

The first decision, an autistic, learning disabled or granny must be found ‘incapable’ of making.

The autistic will remain unresponsive with blank eyes, that hide so much, as would the author of, ‘Through The Eyes of Aliens’ a highly intelligent, mute autistic.

Who, most likely could be found ‘incapable’ had she not written an academic book.

By now, the vulnerable person, who rarely sees people will be feeling threatened by a stranger in his personal space asking him a question, which means little to a non- autistic.

He will want to be alone to comfort himself in the autistic world, where he alone resides.

So he will tell him to go away, get out of his room and become agitated.

The assessor will leave as his training is ever  risk  averse and he knows nothing, of this particular autistic’s behaviour or habits.

What will happen then?

The MCA Code of Practice provides;

4.57 There may be circumstances in which a person whose capacity is in doubt refuses to undergo an assessment of capacity or refuses to be examined by a doctor or other professional.

In these circumstances, it might help to explain to someone refusing an assessment, why it is needed, and  the consequences of refusal.

But threats, or attempts to force the person to agree to an assessment are not acceptable..

No one can force an assessment, unless, there are serious concerns about mental health, and the Mental Health Act can be invoked, as he is a danger to himself, or others’.

As by s1 MCA and the common law a person is capable and has autonomy over what happens to him.

But here is the shocker…

A person can be assessed as lacking capacity to refuse or agree to a capacity test.

As 4.58 Code of Practice provides, 

  ‘If the person lacks capacity to agree or refuse, the assessment can normally go ahead, as long as the person does not object to the assessment, and it is in their best interests’.

But how, is it possible for a person, to lack capacity to agree or refuse  an assessment but still  have sufficient capacity to object to the same assessment ?

Isn’t ‘objecting’ the same as ‘refusing’?

This makes no sense.

And surely if he refuses to engage is this not ‘objecting to the assessment’?

He has a right to refuse/object, as  he is presumed  capable under the Act.

But, despite this, the Code provides, ‘the assessment can then normally go ahead’.!

But, what is this ‘assessment’ that now goes ahead and what is it based on?

And, as consent, from a  capable person, must be obtained, to any assessment, this assessment would be a trespass to the person.

To say nothing of a breach of his human rights.

And, if it did go ahead, is effectively non existent.

As it, and the  assessment of the person’s incapacity to consent could  only be based under the MCA the functional test.

And, this,  in the circumstances,  as no questions have been asked of the assessee can only be based on, the autistic’s  general presentation and the condition , which is illegal, under the MCA.

And where does this fit in with s1 MCA which declares that there is a presumption of capacity until proved otherwise.

And highly discriminatory so likely illegal under the Equality Act.

And, in breach of the guidelines set out in statutory form in the Autism Act 2009, which would allow a judicial review of any assessment.

Also, this could only be a functional assessment, based on, the autistic’s failure to engage.

Also based on the autistic’s condition and presentation.

Ilegal under the MCA.

In fact this test, would not even. provide evidence, of suspected/alleged incapacity, let alone, amount to a formal capacity test, accepted by the court of protection, as rebutting evidence to  remove the presumption of capacity, given at common law, and in the Act.

In any event, the MCA capacity test per se, is not, applicable to the autistic mind, and is meaningless to the autistic.

And, thus proves nothing.

We also have the problem that many rightly believe autism is not an ‘impairment of the mind’ and therefore not covered by the MCA.

Yet, worryingly, and illegally, the Standard Assessment of Capacity Record to be completed by the Local Authority guidance allows for such assessments as it commences as follows;

The assessment should end if the person is unable to progress through the functional test. For example if a person cannot understand the decision they will not be able to retain it, weigh it in the balance or meaningfully communicate a decision’.

To obtain a Capacity Order, from the Court of Protection, the Local Authority need to show suspected incapacity by, stating the functional test, is satisfied.

Again, in respect to autistics, the suspicion, is normally based on the autistic’s condition, and presentation, and assessments, based on such evidence, are  not allowed, per se.

The guidance then continues,

The important point is to provide evidence that you have put the decision that needs to be made to the person,. and what their response is using direct quotes and or a description of their reaction.

If they cannot due to the level of impairment process the information there is nothing to be gained by continuing’.

Wow.

Local Authorities, do not even have to administer the functional test, to render a person incapable.

So back to our autistic/granny being assessed, the assessor can read out the questions, be ignored, and then state in his Record of Assessment Form, that the response was silence, and render this person, incapable of making any decision for the rest of his life.

And  it appears, from the guidance to the Standard Assessment Form, there is nothing about the fact, the assessment must be conducted under the best possible circumstances for the asssessee, having regard to, his state of mind, physical ease, to enable, the maximum possibility of capacity being found, as required by s1 MCA.

All  the assessor needs to show, by ticking the boxes on a standard form, is that a meaningless process, has taken place.

How easily assessors earn their money.

How shocking, effectively anyone, but particularly the autistic, could lose the right, to make any decision, for life on the basis of an illegal, meaningless, non assessment.

Even, Stephen Hawking, had he not been fitted with a voice box, would, it appears, have been deemed ‘incapable’.

memespp

But not if you are autistic.

Rip off of Disabled Care and Education

Over the past two years, I have been deceived, and manipulated.

But most of all, ignorant, of the Local Authorities, and Government’s policies, for the mentally disabled.

Through my experiences, and being a lawyer, I have researched, the law, and practice, of the despicable, clandestine, ruthless policies, initiated, by our last government.

Now implemented by our present, with the help of charities, care agencies, courts, and Local Authorities.

They, not only exploit, our most vulnerable, that should, in a civilised society, be our most protected, but, use our money to do so.

So in this post, I would like to share with you, how this is happening, so at least, parents can be forewarned.

Naively, I thought what our government meant, by privatisation of welfare, was personalised budgets, where families would be provided with lists of carers.

Rather like rated.dot. Com carer, and be able to choose, and employ the right ones, with the help of an administration charity.

But I now realise, personalised budgets, were always doomed to fail, as logistically, there is no effective system, to find carers.

With a maximum of 7.50 per hour, and the LA bureaucratic red tape, the system, is no more than a sop, to real privatisation.

The term, has been hijacked, by the personalised services  money, being paid to spying support packages, over which the consumer has no control.

Our government’s privatisation, is privatised monopoly corporate care agencies, run for maximum profit , cultish, on message, employing, a sea of itinerant, zero hour workers often immigrants.

Or, small ad hoc care agencies, and education packages, on a commercially aware basis, desperate for your ‘pot of money’, paid to them, and controlled by the Local Authority.

‘Education’, has  been privatised, under EHCs, for those with special needs, after 16.

SEN statements no longer exist, replaced by ad hoc, on message public/ private partnerships, combining social care with ‘independent’ skills training to encage.

After 16, there are no longer schools.

Or respite centres, as a home from home.

Or day centres, to meet up with chums.

Do not let anyone, try to convince you this is about cost cutting.

This is about redirecting, the money, we pay in taxes, to fund our public services, into large corporate monopolies, some owned by venture capitalists, outsourcing companies, or self preservatory charities, on a ‘sustainability’ basis, recycling profits tax free ,who service the social care, and independent living industry.

It is an orchestrated rip off, not only of our taxes, but of our statutory rights.

These corporations, are basically out sourcing companies ie employment agencies, easily disposable, and unaccountable; they can rip off and disappear, and reappear, under another name.

‘Independent living’ for life, is in secret, there are no spy cameras, complaints are futile, and, the Care Quality Oversight a tick box exercise.

So social ‘care’ is the perfect business model.

Our government’s privatisation has already ripped off probation, prison and court translation service by SERCO, and soon our child protection service, and courts.

In breach of the disabled, and their families human rights to a family life, and freedom from oppression, and inhumane treatment, Carers Act, Equality Act, Autism Act, and Education Act.

But, as these rights, cannot effectively be enforced, they can be ignored.

Encagement, under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, is the biggest, and most draconian weapon.

Since August 2013, applications to the court of protection for deprivation of liberty orders by LAs, have risen over 60%, but not, the number of judges.

Who continue to complain of impossible case loads.

Courts, are effectively forced, to rubber stamp applications, relying on the presumed paternalism of the LA, that ‘independent’ 24/7 supervised living, will always be in a person’s ‘best interests’.

To maximise profit for the Local Authority,‘incapacity’ is being too liberally, and, therefore illegally applied.

It is generally accepted, that the MCA, is not doing what it was intended to do, or is it?

We have the terrible conflict of interest, that the more severe the disability, the less the capacity, and the more the need to encage, and the greater the profit from ‘care’.

Making it not in the LA’s interests, to provide adequate care, for the disabled.

As the more distressed, a vulnerable person is made, by their ‘care’, or removal from home, the more evidence, the LA get of their’ incapacity’,so its win win.

My daughter is a prime example.

Since 2013, £200,000 had been spent on her.

A million, on her 5 yr 6 month NAS home, despite her being a third of the time, at home/holiday.

Her education regressed, her teeth rotted, faeces impacted, she suffered PTSD, had had no school,nor any overnight respite away from home.

Care and education, has made my daughter, ripe for processing under the Mental Capacity Act.

SEN has been replaced by a 75 million government fund, to provide bespoke ‘education’ packages

Anyone, and everyone, can set up such packages, but will have to be in with the LA to be paid.

Their quality appears unaccountable, as the LA commission the service, it has a vested interest, in finding it fit for purpose, and would be liable, if it were not.

The parents have little say, the threat, of loss of access to their children silences them, and, complaints are futile.

Legal action, for breach of statutory duty, without legal aid and the risk of court and LA costs, is impossible.

Education provision, does not appear subject to any oversight.

My own experience of such education packages, was not good.
.
We were lead to believe, that my daughter at 16, would attend a named local special needs school, and a teacher from the school assessed her.

I assumed under SEN.

A teacher from our local special needs school, attended our home in June 2013, for what was ‘termed’ an assessment of Issy.

But consisted of my filling her in, on the dire regression in her reading and writing, her one and a half million ‘special needs’ provision had produced.

She said nothing as to how, where, or, what our daughter would be taught.

I had asked, would it be in her school building, she replied not usually, inferring lack of space.
.
Then,in the September’s Children in Needs Meeting, I was introduced to a man from XY, I was not told his function, and thought him a general overseer, and actually nicknaming him, the ‘umbrella man’.

At the end of this meeting, he discussed Isabel’s ‘education’, which he said would commence mid October, with an assistant teacher from the said local school, and, an existing agency care worker.

I thought Isabel was being phased into the named local special needs school,eventually attending fulltime until 18/25.

Instead, her education consisted of a twice weekly, 10.45.-3 pm, increased to 3 in January, outings.

Issy had lunch in a cafe, visits to a farm, two visits to the local school, and swimming.

The assistant teacher, showed me a picture of her classroom, and, I noticed there were computers stacked on the floor.

She provided Issy with a large cloth calendar with weather symbols, books from the local library, handcraft materials, but all had to be stored in our house, often it appeared the ‘classroom’, was not available, and locked.

I later found out, by looking at the address of the education provider’s office, that her ‘classroom’, was in fact a spare office in their headquarters.

And, a worker told me, Issy was often unhappy there, and office staff had complained of her noise.

There was no evidence of scholastic improvement, her ‘report’, stating she had acquired skills, she already had,like putting hat and coat on, carrying own bag, table manners, this package, supposedly, preparing her for her future ‘ independent’ living.

Making her even more profitable.

This ‘education’ was also used, to obtain evidence of parental incapacity, and/or neglect.

I was told, by a worker, that  the education workers,were spying on me, and discussing me in Costa coffee, after their education sessions, with their education package manager.

The education manager man asked me, ’Do you want us to continue to support Isabel ?’.

Confused I replied,’ You have a statutory duty to do so’.

Weeks later, he asked again.

I said, ‘You ’ve already asked me that’.

He said, ;Yes but you didn’t give me an answer’.

I said.’ is there any other option’.

He said, ‘He didn’t think so’.

The documentation sent, before our April Children in Need Meeting, said funding was in place until 2015 for this education package, but needed the parents’ consent.

Which, was why, he had pressed for my consent.

I withdrew my improperly implied consent, at a children in need meeting in April 2014.

The manager then took his workers, and left us without any support, or, Issy any ‘education’.

The same education package provider, has an internet site, and operates a drop in, for all parents with teenagers with behavioural problems, in confidence.

Desperate parents, reveal their problems, which, can then be used by social services, to show you cannot control and/or your parenting is abusive and/ or neglectful, and in your child’s best interests to live independently, and you  cut out of his life for ever, as an abusive/incapable/neglectful parent.

There is a conflict of interests here.

Your social worker will offer your child/ adult psychological help; this can then feed into their lack of capacity, and best interest’s reports, needed for a deprivation of liberty order.

Your social worker, will ask, as mine did, if you are depressed, anxious, and offer you psychological help, and you will be assessed.

And, as psychologists, are paid by the state, and want to continue to be paid, it is likely, their report will not be in your favour.

Depression, and anxiety, and by now, no doubt paranoia, can be easily diagnosed.

If you start suggesting illnesses, your unable to communicate child might have, they could add fabricated illness disorder, the newly named Munchausen.

Meanwhile, your on message GP, will want to examine you to ascertain present, or future health issues, that could affect parenting capacity, weight, age, diabetes, cholesterol, and, any conditions, you do actually have.

There is a similar modus, used, to obtain care orders, and as with the care courts, all is done in secret.

If you go to the media, you could be imprisoned for contempt, and, you will be gagged for life.