The Mental Capacity Act, can make anyone, a prisoner of the state.

cropped-big-brother-is-watching-1984_jpgThe Mental Capacity Act 2005 not only qualifies, as the most socially draconian Act in modern history but also created its own court.

Why?

To purportedly protect the rights of the vulnerable.

A surprisingly laudable reason for a government.

Particularly, with no media pressure,  scandals, petitions, or campaigns that  warranted any legislation, let alone such a monster of oppression.

Whilst now 8 years  on,  there is huge pressure and an urgent need to protect our vulnerable from a plethora of  scandals, Winterbourne, statistics that 3 learning disabled, die needlessly per day and concerned relatives, if not  excluded, resorting to spy cameras.

If this Act were about protection it is a catastrophic failure.

So, why was the cost and time of this Act, thought so necessary, it was pursued for years  and implemented subject to review, despite two years of House of Lords objections?

And why did its need ignore the fact that  the inherent High Court jurisdiction, Enduring  Powers of Attorneys, the doctrine of necessity and The Office of Public Guardian had already  adequately protected the vulnerable,  for centuries.

And still do except in the UK.

Far from protecting the vulnerable, the Act has served to encage them, and make them, far more vulnerable.

So what was, the purported reason for  the Act ?

Amazingly,  little.

A government concern, that due to the ‘unstructured’ nature of  protection, decisions vulnerable people could make for themselves were being  made by others.

And, if   a person became  incapable of making a decision  others should be prevented from making this decisions without the vulnerable’s, considerable involvement.

The fact that today,  such an implausible respect for an individual’s autonomy has through the subversive implementation of the Act resulted in the total removal of a vulnerable person’s autonomy, sadly, reveals the government’s real agenda.

The very concerns, the government sought to remedy, are now given flesh, by the Act.

It  is being used, not only, not to involve vulnerable in decisions  concerning them, but it also, allows LAs/ care providers, to make all the vulnerable’s decisions for life.

Incapacity, is needed for the jurisdiction of the Court of Protection.

It is the gateway, to an individual’s  every future decision being made by the state.

Allowing a vulnerable adult, unlucky enough to need  ‘support’to be made a captive consumer of any state care, without reprieve, escape or complaint.

A person’s worst nightmare.

Every decision made for you, by strangers, whose overriding interest is profit .

And, the MCA has been drafted, to allow potentially, anyone’s, decisions to be made for them.

As it provides any state agent, care/support worker, social worker, nurse, GP, psychologist, counsellor, alzeimer friend, even neighbour, can assess whether an individual is ‘capable’.

If they appear to them to be mentally impaired as a result of a non exhaustive, all embracing list- learning disability, mental health problem, brain injury, dementia, alcohol or drug misuse, effects of treatment/medication or in fact any other illness or disability.

Not only is the list of ‘assessors’ effectively anyone, the reasons for  ‘incapacity’ is limitless.

Already, psychiatry/mental health is farcically extensive the US having created  375 mental disorders, diagnosed on a symptoms based subjective basis.

How vague, and subjective are these extensive impairments ‘learning disability’, ‘any other illness’ and the ‘side effects of medication’ ?

The Act  has been drafted to allow anyone, who comes into contact with a member of the public,  to assess them as incapable of making decisions.

Beyond terrifying, and amazing is the  power, it gives the state and their informers.

The ability to remove anyone’s autonomy by stealth and deem them a non person.

See latest rulings from Mr Justice Charles on Deprivation of Liberty Orders

http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/news/press-releases/ruling-highlights-rights-of-vulnerable-people-in-deprivation-of-liberty-hearings/

Worse than  Orwell’s ‘1984’ monitors.

The state ‘us’ is given the right to assess the ‘them’; without the ‘them’ even knowing,  and the ‘them’ are not even given the right to challenge the assessment.

And the courts, then remove all a person’s decision making rights, by illegal, blanket, general assessments, in a secret court.

The Act is not  protecting our ‘vulnerables’ rights but  removing them.

For NHS/LA private profit.

And, as the state decides, who is ‘vulnerable’  and it could be you.

 

Advertisements

Education Report, ‘A Red Mark The Size of a Fist’

4508491-Small-and-powerful-fist-on-a-white-background-Stock-PhotoIt is Thursday 29/1/2014.

What a long, long, week.

As if being up at nights for months, with no personal care, or respite for over 2 years wasn’t enough.

I am now being tortured by the social services.

The snow is thick, my husband had to take the bus to work.

Issy was up at 11.00am, and eventually after much effort in the bath.

And, I managed to get photos of her stomach..

It would appear, all those in need of support, are at the mercy, of any itinerant, zero hour, or, unpaid placement stranger,apparently, desperate, to do the State’s dirty work.

A friend in London told me, carers in care homes, demand ‘protection money’, from relatives.

What a disgusting moral compass is now the norm.

The snow has conspired, to make even walks down the drive scary, Issy doesn’t like slippyness.

Just before noon, the ‘funding lady’, our social workers manger’s manager rang me.

The last thing my psyche needed after Issy’s bath at a moment when she was demanding never ending juice and I was alone.

With the usual infuriating, social worker prescribed conversation,

How are things?’.

You surely must know how things are’. I replied.

You will know more than me, about what’s happening’.

The nice affable lady, did not turn up on Tuesday two days ago, and the Lodge Lady hasn’t today’.

‘We received no prior, or post notification, or indeed, any communication from anyone.’

Except from our adult social services social worker, and GP, demanding to see a non- existent lump on Issy’s tummy’.

This is the ‘intensive, specialist, highly expensive service’, provided to an autistic girl, not yet out of the trauma, the state, for the second time, threw her in’.

The funding lady, then tells me, I have ‘strong opinions’, and, the workers had not felt ‘comfortable’ in the house.

I countered.

They had not mentioned or looked as if they were ‘uncomfortable’.

Let alone why .

Its non- stop coffee, tea and chats, magazines, and two books on autism lent, and, never  returned.

And, they do what they want with Issy.

I have spent the last two years, having all my cupboards rearranged, without asking, and my washing machine broken.

Being a complete tit, I have given away dresses, shoes, coats, tops, CD radios, face creams, shears, masses of legal advice etc. mainly to the lady, who had the first hissy fit.

10 Nintendo games to another worker who befriended Issy, groomed me, and after an outing with him, Issy  repeatedly asked,’ Why do men like having willies up their arse?’.

He was never seen again, as not offered ‘education’ work, (more money and security).

Poor Issy has been so let down, by the itinerancy of workers, but, her fate would be much worse in ‘independent’ living.

And,Lodge Lady ( the latest since November education support worker), had arrived daily, with a Private Eye, or, internet article, or, own experience of a care scandal, to elicit/encourage my ‘strong opinions’.

I remind the funding lady,

‘as zero hour workers, every worker can be specifically chosen, and prescribed’.

She retorts, ‘they are all individuals’.

So the inference is  the 30 +  previous agency workers,  must all have felt ‘uncomfortable’…. For 18 months…. but this, was the first I’d heard of it.

She tells me the affable, independent of the state, with a conscience lady, does not want to support Issy anymore.

So why did she choose Monday, without  warning to leave ?

Why did she make me chutney and chat so freely never mentioning her ‘uncomfortability’.?

It was a  loss,  as she loved the autistic, and Issy liked her.

But she had said ominously, she, ‘had nothing to do, with ‘education’’.

Now, we know why.

I assume, she didn’t want to get involved in their dirty tricks, of the lucrative, independent of family living, industry.

I noticed the nice  workers disappeared.

One, had a two week mystery illness, just when the trainee and social workers, were moving in for the kill, but, had a hissy fit, never to return.

I suspect, their reputable international agency, were worried about bad PR, from this blog.

Their head office, monitors the net, and had picked up my mention of their name, as a zero hour employer, in a Guardian comment, and, had banned me, from naming them on social media.

Such is the self- preservation, of our all-powerful, privatised monopolies.

The funding lady asked, if I  would consider, having Lodge Lady, and a new worker.

I told her to read my blog, and then objectively decide, whether, she would.

She replied she didn’t read blogs.

Issy was demanding juice, the bath was run….  I did not need this.

I mentioned all this.

Which she must have already been aware of from Issy’s shouts.

Eventually, I forced an exit.

But the phone rang 20 minutes later.

She had read my blog.

And  some points were incorrect.

It was not the Adult Social Worker, who had rung the GP, but her.

So much, then for her asking last week, what she could do, to rebuild my trust in the social services.

But, did not explain why the GP, had given the social workers name.

Nor why, the same social worker, rang us earlier reporting the lump.

Nor, why  this was so important.

Secondly, she said the blog incorrectly stated the support worker, had not discussed her concern, when she had.

I said, read the blog again.

The worker had pointed  out a non-existent bulge.

And then, when I, and the affable lady, had said it was pre period swelling, had said no more about it during the 4 hours that remained of her shift.

She had not pointed out,‘ a red mark, the size of a fist’ as was reported to the GP.

I couldn’t bear this  cross examining sophistry any longer.

And Issy needed attention.

Why was no one concerned about her ?

‘For the mother of God’, I cried.

And Issy on cue, decided the phone had to go back in its place, and grabbed it.

That night, I reflected, on what the GP had actually, been told.

I had been distracted by the impaction discussion, and the bulge comment.

I  analysed the reported ‘concern’,

‘A red mark on the side of Issy’s tummy, the size of a small fist’.

I realised, it  wasn’t  describing a bulge,

It  painted, a shocking picture, of abuse.

It could not be accidental, self-harm, or, neglect.

It was on  soft tissue.

It could only be…………… a punch.

And, as small, my fist,  as the primary carer, and most alone with Issy.

Wow…..

How might this be made to appear in court documents;

An education worker, who had formed a good relationship with Issy over several weeks of support, and, had just managed to get her out of the house for the first time in 9 months, noticed a red, fist sized mark on the side of Isabel’s stomach.

She pointed it out to her mother, who ignored her.

So she reported it to the social services, who rang the parents, but they would not let them see Isabel, so they rang the GP, but the parents also refused the GP’s request to come to their home and examine her.

The GP, now very concerned for Isabel’s safety, arrived at their home, he was verbally attacked by the mother, didn’t manage to  examine Isabel, as she refused to undress, or cooperate.  (but did see her running around happy not in pain).

The mother then refused any more support, or engagement with the social services’.

I had walked right into that one…..

If I did nothing, as photos can be air brushed, this would be taken, as irrefutable evidence of a vicious assault.

And we would be cut out of Issy’s life for ever.

The LA would have their £6,000 +a week, cash and pharma cashcow, the Lodge Lady a career path, a loving devoted mother  destroyed, and a father heartbroken, never to see their child again unsupervised.

And Issy doomed to live in an abusive hell, alone.

Such is evil.

Such is morality.

Such is adult state protection costing millions

And  the danger of care/education workers.

I rang the GP, apologised, and, asked him round to try to re -examine Issy…..

He arrived but did not touch her stomach only viewed for marks

Yet recorded later in her medical notes that there was no hot bulge on her stomach.

Mental Health, Big Pharma, Big Profits, Big Danger.

6a00d8346d963f69e2011570215b77970c_800wi_xlarge

As it is was revealed in February 2013, NHS bosses allowed the world’s biggest drugs firm’s’ lobbying company, to draft a report shaping our future health policy, we must consider the very real danger of the abuse of our mental health for profit.

Mental consumers are sought everywhere- schools, prisons, hospitals, police stations, prisons, even the homeless sleeping rough are hounded.

By 2016 Cameron announces on national news 1 in 10 children  suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder.

And all media promote the outing of ‘mental health’ issues.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/22/third-teenage-girls-depression-anxiety-survey-trend-truant

And it is encouraged to discuss your mental issues, which then become a disability and enable the state to control the citizen and make him a pharma cash cow.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/29/how-do-i-know-if-i-have-a-mental-illness?CMP=share_btn_tw

In 2011 FOI notices revealed hundreds of instances of hospitality, worth several hundred thousand pounds from drug giants.

Of conferences for NHS staff in Sydney, Mauritius, Las Vegas.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/02/10/doctors-receiving-drug-company-money.aspx

We are fed by the media, that the recently created, and now accepted without question phenomena of ‘self harm’, has seen a 45% increase in boys, all ripe for medication.

Mere social conduct disorders are now classed as mental disorders to treat with a different expensive drug.

In America half of foster children are on prescribed drugs.

http://dxsummit.org/archives/1774

One in 15 Americans at 18 now are labelled with a mental disorder.

See Robert Whitaker’s ‘Anatomy of an Epidemic’ and how the label of a disorder rather than helping has destroyed lives.

A and E departments received 30 million for mental health,  funding is in place, for mental health referrals,  in police stations, and schools.

We have an over supply of NHS mental health ‘professionals’ and  375 curtesy of America, mental disorders.

Medicalisation of social/ behavioural problems is a huge ever growing market for the Pharma Industry.

‘Self-harm’ is usefully medicated by expensive anti-psychotic drugs…

The Mirror revealed, 62 Tory MPs have links with Private Health.

Disorders make profit and control our autonomy, and society.

In 2005, the FDA issued an extraordinary “Public Health Advisory” cautioned against the risks, associated with, the whole new generation of antidepressants, including, Prozac, and its knock offs, Zoloft, Paxil, Luvox, Celexa, and Lexapro, as well as Wellbutrin, Effexor, Serzone, and Remeron.

The warning followed a public hearing, in which, dozens of family members and victims testified of increased violence, and suicide after their use.

Despite this, and research studies showing anti-depressants were only slightly more effective, than a placebo.

Which is why Prozac is not licensed in Germany and does not satisfy NICE effectiveness guidelines.

This less that clinically required beneficial effect could in any event be due to research and conferences, being funded by the drug companies, research methods design to show advantages, and positive effects being published more than negative ones.

Yet despite this in 2007, there were 34 million prescriptions for anti-depressants and more than 40 million people are estimated to have taken Prozac since 1988.

The latest danger of anti depressant and hidden side effects, reported in the Guardian, on 17 th September 2015 http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/sep/16/seroxat-study-harmful-effects-young-people

‘Experts’ know little of how our brains work and even less as to how drugs affect this working and our physical health, particularly, in the long term.

And therefore can know little about how antidepressants work.

The huge flaw is that  no test, can measure the amount of serotonin in a living brain.

So ‘experts’ do not know what is a low, or normal level of serotonin in a normal brain and are working blind with adjustments by medication.
.
And there is little evidence, that depression is caused by a serotonin shortage per se and many studies contradict this theory of depression but are hidden .

And in today’s desperate times, it is more likely not pathological, but a normal reaction to uncertainty, debt and stressful abusive employment and education, and  our survival of the fittest society .

Children and adult mental health services and other NHS mental health services consist of  diagnosis and then usually straight onto medication.

But the effectiveness is not known, and is not monitored, and there are no scientific controls so the adequacy of services and drugs which cost billions cannot be judged.

So we have a multibillion pound industry, which by funding research, media and government, can create an ever increasing market, voluntary, and enforced, under the threat of care orders, if under 16, and, then mental capacity act orders if over.

Already half our population has been put on prescribed drugs.

1 in 15 Americans, reach adulthood with a mental disorder.

Do we really want to follow ?

The Mental Capacity Act 05 allows the state, to enforce medication, on effectively anyone, the experts, deem ‘incapable, of making a decision in respect to their medication.

And the Act, has a frighteningly vague, all expansive definition of ‘incapacity’, which systemically, is made, impossible to oppose.

Worse still ,The Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004, which regulates the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products, allows a legal representative, (a person not connected with the conduct of the trial), to consent to the participation of ‘incapable’ adults, in medical research, currently, very little is known as to how these representatives make their decisions.

So it appears, those deemed ‘incapable’ under the MCA and that is potential millions can be used as guinea pigs by profit hungry drug companies.

Most alarming is the fact there is no central check, or control on  prescription drugs.

GPs are politicised and commercialised. They do not have to comply with conditions of drug licences and often prescribe off- label.

We as a nation are now hooked on antidepressants, statins, and, even painkillers http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2774300/GPs-creating-nation-hooked-painkillers-Addictions-codeine-morphine-drugs-reached-dangerous-levels.html

Mental health, is the perfect business model, for present, and future profit particularly as it is being increasingly enforced by  the MCA,and, supported by academics, NHS and media.

All financed and controlled by government.
.

Mental Capacity Act, Best Interests, Removal to State Care, and Human Rights.

Once, it has been assessed, that a person lacks ‘capacity’ to make a decision.

The MCA provides, any decision on their behalf, must be, as thought, the incapacited would have made it. s4.

But, with the huge caveat, of paternalism-

Only if, it is thought to be, in that persons, ‘best interests’.

This further removes, a deemed ‘incapable’s’ autonomy

Already illegal under Art 17 UN Directive as ‘substitute decision making’.

This is why, charities for the elderly, advocate, joint decision making.

Charities, for the mentally disabled/autistic do not.

Nor, do the courts.

Instead, what the incapacitated decision would have been, is overridden, to whatever the state believe is in his ‘best interests’.

The House of Lords  select committee report revealed,

‘families and carers painted a depressing picture of their exclusion from decision making’,

let alone, the incapable’s  exclusion.

At best, families, are consulted, but have no right, to be part of the decision making process.

Nor do Independent Mental Capacity Advocates.

A person’s ‘best interests’, is left to a social services /NHS best interests assessor.

With no independent voice.

Or, consideration of, the conflict of interests, arising from the profit from state private provision and, the LA policy of only funding such care, and, the incapacitated person’s wishes, and interest.

The ‘best interests’ assessors, if disputed,abrogates ultimate responsibility, to the courts.

But, the court of protection work load, since implementation of MCA, has increased by 60%, whilst staff decreased by 30 %.

There is no non means tested legal aid for fanilies,

And, as the HL report,  the legal profession, nor apparently, anyone, fully understands the Act.

But, is it appears to be being deliberately misinterpreted, as the drafters knew, it would have to be,

as the Act, as drafted is unworkable, as shown by the recent  Cheshire Supreme Court judgement on Deprivation of Liberty.

An official solicitor, will be appointed to represent, the ‘Incapacitated’.

As the incapable’s family’s interests, will usually be deemed to conflict with the incapable, as their neglect/abuse/incapacity will usually be alleged .

This Official Solicitor, is anything, but independent, as paid by the state.

And, receives information only, from professional agencies, instructed by the Local Authority .

As, his client is incapable of instructing him, he cannot take his instructions.

Therefore, an OS, cannot fulfil his duty to his client, and, the court, to obtain a fair hearing.

Illegal blanket assessments, and capacity tests, are used.

And are systemically, impossible, to challenge.

The act, even exempts an expert from liability, if he reasonably believes, a person is incapable.

But not, if he uses, an illegal test, or does not comply with the MCA, his duty to the incapacitated, or the court.

Additionally, the Act requires that in making the decision,

‘ regard must be had as to whether the purpose for which it is needed can be as effectively achieved in a way that is less restrictive of the person’s rights and freedom of action’.

As, the usual decision to be made, is removal from home, to a state private institution.

And,  as LAs have now, on the excuse of cost cutting, removed effective support at home.

It will not be difficult to show, that such care and support, cannot be ‘effectively achieved’, without removal.

So, the state’s withdrawal of support at home, and, within the community, aids the ‘best interests’ decision, they seek.

State  private profit providers, can then claim, the large amounts of money, the disabled, and their families, are entitled to,  under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Act 1970.

And worse, are being allowed to do so, for basic, unaccountable services.

And the incapable serve user, cannot complain.

The LA  adult social services care managers oversee them.

But, there is a conflict of interests, between this role, and their commissioning role.

As if the service is inadequate, the LA will be liable.

Adult Services Managers, have now replaced Adult Social Workers, except, for the enforcement process into state care.

As with all legislation, the MCA, must be interpreted, to give effect to the incapacitated human rights, of privacy, and a family life.

State removal, away from family, and 24 hour supervision, is the ultimate interference with theirs, and their family’s human right under s 8.

And, an incapacitated person, via a next friend, could apply for a prohibitory injunction under s8 Human Rights Act, to prevent his removal.

But, how would the incapacitated, or, his family know this.

And, be able to enforce it ?

The Official Solicitor, paid by the state, will be in favour of  removal.

The family member, has very limited  legal aid, and, the risk of the LAs costs.

And, will have to find a lawyer, willing to take on the state, and, be able to pay him.

.