Effect of the Connor Sparrowhawk Verdict and Puplic Accountability.

Audit checklist on a desk, with tick against audit satisfactory

Over the past 30 years, public health and welfare systems, have been honed to perfect unaccountability,   self- preservation, and risk aversion.

The total impossibility of even NHS complaints is illustrated here.   https://www.dropbox.com/s/xn3zf9epstwl9mh/The%20problem%20is%20the%20burden%20of%20proof.doc?dl=0

It has taken nearly three years, and over a million pounds, a public campaign, several published enquiries a coroner’s inquest, and a jury, to show it was negligent to allow an epileptic, autistic inpatient in an assessment centre to lie for hours unattended in  a bath. .

Connor’s family have effectively got no where in the fight for justice for their son and as can be seen her in his Mum’s blog are still waiting at 5th April 2016.

https://mail.google.com/mail/?tab=wm#inbox/153e2c1b7656bf3a

To decide, that allowing, a vulnerable epileptic man, to drown in his bath, was negligent.

And, it was revealed, that only 6 years earlier, another man had drowned mal- nourished in the same bath, in the same NHS adult treatment centre.

The only conclusion, that can be drawn from this, is, the NHS is publically unaccountable.

And, even when it is, the only sanction is a fine, payable, from public funds, and, resultant insolvency.

Following a pointless, expensive public enquiry. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/06/mid-staffs-hospital-scandal-guide

St Andrews Healthcare, and most Adult Treatment Units, are now run for private profit, but, paid out of the NHS public purse, and, as charities, pay no tax.

So no tax, no accountability, no service, and huge profit.

The perfect business model.

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

And, a similar story is true, now of most public services.

The Baby P scandal, illustrated, the lack of accountability, self-protection, and, inadequacy, of the now, effectively privatised child protection services.

What is their accountability, for the thousands of rapes of children over 15 years in Rotherham alone?

Or, the many illegal adoptions, that pocket adopting agencies, a minimum of £28,000 per child.

https://finolamoss.wordpress.com/2015/07/07/autistic-parents-have-no-rights-and-the-private-corporate-parent-is-unaccountable/

Mental health is now about creating, as profitable a market, as possible.

When did the learning disabled, autistic, epileptic, need to be institutionalised, and, medicated, at huge public expense, for life?

This is a gold mine, from which private equity is, literally, and, metaphorically, making a killing.

See the billions spent on mental health services in the past 5 years in England.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2015-06-11/2174/

Throwing money at a service, without accountability, has shown not to work.

The forced, costly exposure of how Connor died, which, put his parents, through even more, unnecessary, excruciating hell, will justify further NHS privatisation.

And, be used, to move mental health care, to a local level, and utilise, the private Adult Treatment Units, holding units, and supported living, already in place.

Thomas Rawnsley, was the only occupant for a long time, in the ATU, which, effectively killed him.

Within these local provisions, accountability, is even more elusive.

As they are  policed, by the Mental Capacity Act, and, Court of Protection,

So, unlike   Connor’s NHS treatment, are in secret, and, for life.

And, therefore, the risk of abuse, and death, even greater.

As, are the profit making opportunities, for the outsourcers, venture capitalists, and their supporting industry

http://www.nationalhealthexecutive.com/Health-Care-News/mental-capacity-act-allows-draconian-and-secretive-decisions

Stephen Hawking, and the difference between ‘Capacity’ and ‘Competence’

Physicist_Stephen_Hawking_in_Zero_Gravity_NASA

The Mental Capacity Act defines capacity as,

the ability to make a decision’.

Whilst competence is defined as

the ability to do something successfully or efficiently’.

Competence is a far more expansive creature.

It is the ability to execute a decision, after it has been made .

If we run the two together, at most, the definition of capacity, would be,

‘ the ability to make a decision, successfully’.

Not to be indecisive, like Hamlet

But indecisiveness is excluded from incapacity under the Act.

The Act, was not titled, The Mental ‘Competency’ Act.

Despite this  the MCA capacity test requires a person to understand the reasonably foreseeable consequences if he were to actually execute his decision once made.

This requires far more, than the an ‘ability to make a decision’ as  ‘capacity’ is defined by  the Act. As it requires the competence to perform the decision.

This is a person’s competency not his capacity .

Such a distinction may not affect the assessments of delirious patients, or, the alzheimer confused, to consent to medical treatment. .

But, even here, the capacity test allows draconian and dangerous removal of any patient’s autonomy.

And prevents any questioning, of medical diagnoses, and/or treatment.

Were Ashya King, an incapable adult, he, nor, his parents, could, have availed themselves of laser treatment, and, he,  might now, be severely disabled.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3148042/Cancer-patient-Ashya-King-six-parents-arrested-taking-abroad-pioneering-treatment-UK-given-clear.html

The  MCA Code of Practice worrying  provides a  denial of  medical or mental diagnosis to be possible evidence of   incapacity to consent to treatment.

Jack Nicholson, in One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, would, therefore, be deemed incapable, of consenting to his treatment, because of his denial of his non existent mental disorder.one-flew-over-the-cuckoos-nest-movie-poster

The MCA Code gives little guidance on assessing capacity when considering proactive decisions.

Stephen Hawking ’s capacity to decide to go into space, or out into the community, without his wheelchair..

Or, an autistic adult’s decision to go out into the community alone.

Are decisions both have the capacity to make but not the competency to perform.

If, they were to insist, they did have such capacity, this would be evidence, this would be evidence, they failed to appreciate, the consequences of their decisions, and, were therefore under the functional assessment,incapable.

Although Professor Hawing’s incapacity, could, not be caused by an’ impairment of the mind’, as unlike an autistic, he has a voice box.

As the Act, likes to have its cake, and eat it, it states, reckless decisions, per se, are not evidence of incapacity.

The MCA capacity test is not about capacity, but competence, safeguarding, and control.

And discriminates against the disabled by using, a disabled’s person’s inability to execute a decision, against him by conflating, incapacity with incompetence.

Parliament appears to have modelled, this capacity test, on the test used, to assess a child’s competency to give evidence.

As section 53(1) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (YJCEA 1999) povides:

A person, is not competent to give evidence in criminal proceedings, if it appears to the court, that he is not a person, who is able to understand questions put to him as a witness and give answers to them which can be understood [section 53(3)].

Having lectured, this for twenty years, I can attest, it is a minefield of semantics.

Case law, arguing, it is satisfied, if a child can distinguish, between ‘fact and fantasy’ ie they know teletubies are not real.

Santa Claus?

And, a child must appreciate, the importance of telling the truth, and the consequences in court. as opposed to a social occasion.

Truth is truth?

Suffice it to say, the competence of a child, is a vague, subjective exercise, for a judge to assess, on questioning each particular child.

So one can but wonder, why, Parliament, chose, a similar blunt, subjective test/ tool, to potentially remove, anyone’s autonomy for life in most cases.

Could it serve the real purpose of the MCA ? ie removal of consent to care and treatment for profit

Profitable Retardation of the Autistic ? Learning ‘Difficulty’ conflated to ‘Disability’.

Einstein

As Liverpool Health NHS Foundation Trust opens new learning disabled hospital

Plans approved for new learning disabilities hospital in Merseyside

We must ask why learning disability is now a physical illness and those with these difficculty are put in hospitals.

Could be the £13,000 A WEEK per patient paid by NHS

Autism, despite its  vague, non pathological definition.

And  vague criteria  diagnoses- lack of imagination and social communication.

Is the UK’s most costly medical condition.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2014/06/Autism.aspx

Why ?

Because, ‘autism’ is so vague  it is the ultimate cash cow.

Despite treatment having little effect.

Analysis finds weak evidence for most autism treatments

And with the billions ploughed into the industry  outcomes for the autistic are  now dire- medication damage, early death and institutionalisation for life.

The autism industry has built a lucrative empire by autism  awareness, detection, and diagnosis.

I always worried about the more intelligent, and/or less obedient 3 year old, who did not knock on the ‘special box’ three times, when told to, to get the toy out.

Or went to find, where a toy actually was, rather than, where the other child, who had not seen it being hidden, would have, thought it was.

Who were diagnosed autistic on such tests.

Screen-shot-2015-08-11-at-11_42_33And wondered if this really did indicate a lack of empathy?.

We all have autistic genes.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/308185.php

Autism is now being detected in babies,

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/11November/Pages/Can-autism-really-be-detected-in-babies.aspx

And, those just ‘At risk ,‘ presumably with autism in their family, are singled out.

At risk of what ?

Something with no pathology, no definition that manifests itself on a spectrum that we are all on.

The intensive hunt for the autistic mirrors that now for Alzheimers.

Our ‘autism friends’, health visitors, nursery schools, GPs, CMHS, Social Services etc.

The diagnosee is a lucrative captive customer, for the autism industry’s ever increasing cabal.

An industry which is PR controlled, with its own experts, managers, qualifications, researchers, guidelines.

That controls the research, the training, the guidelines, the tests, and, even, the definition of autism.

This cabal per se, is lucrative and, as charitable, tax free, and gains more income from students, training, government, and fundraising.

All singing from the same, unquestioned hymn sheet.

The autistic and parents have little input nor do the outcomes for the autistic.

And all are controlled by draconian  Care and Court of Protection MCA orders, that can enforce any treatment/medication/residence/education the cabal want.

Only those few protected, as part of the cabal, or  who escape diagnosis survive.

For the ‘autistic’, the discrimination starts early.

At 4/5, the autistic child is subject, to the same IQ tests, as, a‘normal’ child, for their EHC statement.

No allowance is given for their communication and  attention difference.

http://autism.about.com/od/schoolandsummer/fl/Why-IQ-Tests-May-Not-Tell-You-Much-About-Your-Child-with-Autism.htm

Which will result in their IQ scores being lower than their actual intelligence..

And, no matter how high their IQ score,  their autism difference  will mean they will have ‘learning difficulties’.

Which is then mislabelled a ‘learning disability’.

No one, distinguishes, the crucial difference.

Disability is the permanent intellectual impairment of having a lower than average intelligence and affects an individual’s capability.

Difficulty is not an intellectual impairment just an acceptance that autism results in a child learning differently.

And will need  more one to one assistance, time to process information, visual aids, and flexible steps for progression.

On this conflation and misunderstanding, inappropriate education is  put in place.

A class room assistant, may teach them, all frogs are green, but the curious intelligent autistic notices they are not.

And, some basics, irrelevant to autistic processing and cannot be learnt justify presumed retardation.

And, as these basics cannot be acquired because of how autistics learn they are not allowed to  progress.

And not encouraged to either, as ever increasing SEN, now EHC funding, would  be removed from their school.

‘Learning disability’, is now termed, ‘intellectual disability’,  the old ‘mental retardation’.

Now deemed an  ‘inapproriate’ term,  as insufficiently PC.

Yet,  substantively/conceptually now forms the basis of an autistics persona, and education.

Yet, there is little evidence for any link between learning disability and autism,

see study in 2009 suggesting little evidence, despite up to 70% of ASD, being now accessed with as learning disabled.http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/195/6/531

This special needs ‘education’ goes hand in hand with behaviour charts.

Such behaviour becoming progressively worse, as the boredom of thwarted curiosity and intelligence, kicks in.

And ADHD, aggression, irritability results and medication is prescribed.

More children than ever in 2016 were put on off label antipsychotics for ADHD

https://www.madinamerica.com/2016/07/more-children-receiving-off-label-antipsychotics-for-adhd/

So the autistic at as young  as 5 can be made pharma cows for life.

See here the pharma role in the creation of ADHD

And now ADHD has been widened to attentive ADHD

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/315359.php

Ritlevin does not work after three years, so stronger more expense antipsychotics are used.

These drugs then actually create a learning disability, pathologically by changing the pathways in the brain, so a once normal brain, with a mere learning difference due to autism becomes learning disabled.

As the effect of the drug reduces  thinking, observation, and motivation.

So, the intelligent, could not improve, even if appropriate education were in place.

Meanwhile, the special needs residential school ,charges £3,500 per week , for its own army of Speech Therapists, Educational Psychologist, Behavioural therapists and specialist teachers.

And make huge profits either for venture capital or recycled to executives if Charitable.

The ‘experts’ mainly manage one to one contact and containment by low wage, itinerant class room teaching assistants.

Why, has no one, ever wondered why, National Autistic Residential Schools, rarely produce 16-18 year old autistics, with a single GCSE?

After,  the equivalent of 5 Eton students fees,of ‘specialist’ input?

Because the autistic are now not taught to National Curriculum in specialist schools, but to specially created P Scale assessment.

At 16, under ECHs schools are no longer funded, instead ‘education packages’ for life skills to train the autistic for their 24/7 surveillance captivity, in ‘independent of family/ community living’ are funded, and this money can be claimed, by  usually residential provider until the autistic is 25.

The autistics’, lack of adaptive skills, tying a shoe lace, changing a battery, organising cupboards, using machines, following instructions, continues the myth of retardation. https://iancommunity.org/ssc/autism-adaptive-skills.

CAMHS treatment and assessment Units require an IQ of 50, or less, yet, there main occupants are non verbal autistics.

The ‘treatment’ consists of antipsychotic medication (illegal, as not short term severe behaviour) which acts as a major neuro depressant/tranquiliser.

Until, at 18, the final insult.

A mental capacity assessor, will deem, on an autistic’s sad lifetime achievements, of at most P scales, and, few adaptive skills.

The MCA assessment will be on adeptive skills not cognitive ability .

The, particularly non verbal autistic, will now be labelled ’ severely intellectually disabled’, regardless of previous IQ .

This label aids, an illegal blanket capacity assessment, that the autistic are so intellectuality impaired, they were never, and will never be, capable of making any decisions.

And , allows the state commissioned, private/charity sector provision, to earn £4,000 per week, for their lifetime encagement, in their ‘best interests’.

Now, that’s  rip off, abuse and discrimination……

15747770_947933215306183_5282025104727343976_n 

Science shows teachers/educationalists.

wronghttp://www.cracked.com/article_20321_5-things-it-turns-out-you-were-right-to-hate-about-school.html

 

 

 

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

It-Is-Not-Torture-Small

No one survives a  MCA capacity test

 

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

Royal-Mail-Stamps-RSC-HamletThe 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.

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.

Illegal MCA and Capacity Tests, and Lucrative Vegetables.

quote-god-has-so-framed-us-as-to-make-freedom-of-choice-and-action-the-very-basis-of-all-moral-william-mathews-371165

The Mental Capacity Act was drafted to protect and empower.

Instead, it is illegally being used to remove all the rights of the deemed ‘incapable’.

To obtain a capacity order, all a Legal Authority needs is a box ticked by anyone, normally a GP,  that they ‘suspect’ a person, incapable.

Effectively, in their opinion, unable to retain information.

So beware of the Alzheimer tests, GPs are now paid, to provide.

Yet, if a person is autistic,  the assessor likely to be GP and/or social worker will only have physically examined, or seen the autistic, have no knowledge of autism and have based their opinion on a  discriminatory  view, of the autistic’s appearance and condition, such an assessment illegal under the MCA.

So much for the National Autistic campaigns and expensive education.

To say nothing, of all our high flown rhetoric, on diversity and equality.

The Court of Protection, on the basis of this perfunctory over sight, will then issue a  48 MCA capacity order without sight of the autistic, or information from those, he has lived with all his life.

This order will be enforced on an interim basis on threat of removal of the alleged incapable despite this being illegal under the MCA, which only has jurisdiction, if a person is incapacitated.

A psychiatrist, or more likely a psychologist,titles matter, will perform another standard tick box test, family might be consulted, but will not take part in the decision making process, despite assisting, and witnessing their child make such decisions, all their life.

Unlike his family, the ‘experts’, will not have seen, the soon to be incapacitated, before the assessment day, and, will know little of the autistic mind, or even, autism.

Actions of the autistic in the past, that show ability to want, and be able, to make decisions, like living at home, will be ignored.

We have no statistics, of how many, if any, manage to pass the test.

Assessors,are paid, chosen, and remitted by the Local Authority, who now, only provide adult services for those in, or destined for, independent living, where the maximum profit can be made, from them.

A clear conflict of interests.

If the LA fail to find an assessor, the official solicitor will then find one, and deem it even more credible, as independent.

Once tick boxed, ‘incapable’.

You’re loving, full of personality and fun son, daughter or granny, becomes a non-person.

A vegetable.

Non sentient.

Incapable, in law, of even being aware of what is happening to them.

Incapable of remembering, anything.

The perfect victim.

But capable of making millions for their encaging private corporations.

Lady Hale, chillingly alluded to this, when she said, just because a person cannot appreciate, they are living in a cupboard, does not mean, it is not a deprivation of liberty.

But can a court remove all a disabled persons rights?

Yes.

Is this, not the worst form, of disability discrimination?

Yes.

Is it not in breach of the person’s Magna Carta right not to lose his liberty except by trial by his peers?

Yes.

The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Art 12 provides, that states party to it, UK is, should replace legislation that provides for substitute decision-making for incapacitated adults based on, ‘what is believed to be in the objective ‘best interests’ of the person concerned, as opposed to being based, on the person’s own will, and preference.

The government has so far done nothing, to repeal the MCA, but, the Court of Appeal has endorsed the Article, as having persuasive authority, as an aid to interpretation of it.

A study of the implementation of article 12 on the decisions of the learning disabled which usually includes the autistic shows it is not being implemented in UK in health or care settings.

Instead, substitute decision making takes http://www.publichealthreviews.eu/upload/pdf_files/12/00_Werner_S.pdf place.

http://www.publichealthreviews.eu/upload/pdf_files/12/00_Werner_S.pdf place.

And even without considering  Article 12, particular weight, must be placed, upon the incapacitated wishes and feelings, in determining where their best interests may lie, Peter Jackson J  Re M (Best Interests: deprivation of liberty order [2013] EWHC 3456 (COP).

So why is it happening to millions?

Profit.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA Is this the photo of a vegetable ? Does she look non sentient?

The Risperidone Scandal

100_0074

The above was published by the American Federal Drug Agency in 2008.

It shows the adverse side effects, of the anti-psychotic drug risperidone, trade name risperidol, since licencing.

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/08/slides/2008-4399s1-04%20%28Risperidone%29.pdf.

Well over $5 billion, in damages, and fines has been paid to plaintiffs, state, and local government agencies by the manufacturer.

http://www.drugdangers.com/risperdal/

Please read in link the legal actions, against Johnson &Johnson in respect to Risperidone damage.

http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/miracleindustry/americas-most-admired-lawbreaker/

And now in 2021 they have a C VIRUS vacccine out,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/medical/single-dose-johnson-johnson-vaccine-provides-strong-protection-against-covid-large-study-finds/ar-BB1dd47A?ocid=msedgntp

Janssen Pharmaceuticals is a pharmaceutical company headquartered in Beerse, Belgium and owned by Johnson & Johnson. It was founded in 1953 by Paul Janssen. … Janssen and Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical have been placed in the Ortho-McNeil-Janssen group within Johnson & Johnson Company.

In   the UK, we do not have an insurance based system of healthcare, so  such actions are effectively impossible.

Read here the shocking expose of history of Risperidal in USA, and effect on children.

http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/miracleindustry/americas-most-admired-lawbreaker/chapter-2.html

I was unable to find similar information as obtained from FDA, from the UK Medicines & Healthcare Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

Our UK’s system of censured, patient led, ad hoc yellow card warnings, and under used coroners inquests, make it difficult to even record a drug’s adverse.

As a cross party UK political Mental Health Task force in 2016, advocates the medicalisation of mental ‘disorders’, now at 275 ,and risperidol or any antipsychotic is prescribed to children, here in 2018 is the latest position in USA on the corruption of child academic research and the connection to our third largest industry Pharma.

Read it and see the danger in UK under the government policies and insistence that a quarter of school children suffer a diagnosable ‘disorder’.

http://jeffreydachmd.com/defrocking-false-prophets-pediatric-psychiatry/

Physical illness and even death, also result in conditions created or contributed to by the use of Risperidone, for example chest infections and pneumonia http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3085099/

Long term autistic, and those with behavioural problems on Risperidone, are often described, as physically ill, and it is most likely that the drug is  causing this.

Just check out the side effects that could make healthy autistic/ leaning disabled/ mentally disordered, physically ill.

http://www.doublecheckmd.com/DrugDetail.do?dname=risperidone&sid=12966&view=e

Similarly, it is documented, that the drug itself, can cause psychosis and seizures .

In the UK, 2000 children, and 110 toddlers are prescribed Risperidone, despite these adverse effects and this has increased.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2651189/Children-young-FOUR-prescribed-antipsychotic-medications-amidst-fears-drugs-routinely-misused.

See multimillion scandal in USA, of Harvard Research  Professor who advised Johnson’ the drug manufacturer Company Executives http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/us/20psych.html?_r=0

How his research could show effectiveness of Risperidone  in pre school children for ADHD, Bipolar, Psychosis.

How could anyone diagnose these disorders in 3 years olds ? And why would they want to ?

And, on what basis would they decide the treatment worked, and how could they determine the future adverse effects on toddlers?

10% of our total NHS budget is on psychiatric prescriptions.

74% of autistics, are on enforced risperidone or similar antipsychotic, despite its licence, for short term extreme behaviour, or psychosis

Some as young as 4, given this powerful chemical lobotomy/ neurological suppressive  as if  sweets with  school milk, and it is put into their fruit shoot drinks.

And ensures a ‘learning difficulty’ due to its proven effect on grey matter and brain shrinkage..

Research shows it  causes learning disability, psychosis, fits and unknown physical changes.

See comments of parents both in UK, USA and Canada

https://spectrumnews.org/news/risperidone-use-in-children-with-autism-carries-heavy-risks/

93% of Learning Disabled in institutions are routinely medicated with Risperidone or similar antipsychotics.

https://www.learningdisabilitytoday.co.uk/two_thirds_of_people_with_learning_disabilities_in_institutions_regularly_given_antipsychotic_medication_report_finds.aspx

Recent research in 2015 shows it is used to control behaviour  alone..

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/sep/01/antipsychotic-drugs-may-be-used-as-chemical-cosh-to-control-behaviour

And evidence, that cognitive behavioural therapy works as well as medication.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2014/mar/07/treat-schizophrenia-antipsychotics-drugs-cognitive-therapy

Children in  state care,  are given behaviour controlling drugs, mainly Risperidol, although Beverley Hughes, a former secretary of state for children, schools and families was unable to provide details of their use.

As they were “not collected centrally by the Department”. (Hansard 28/4/2009).

And are still not.

This despite 39 fatal NHS drug reports, citing the deceased, as having:

a “learning disorder or disability, behavioural disorder, autism, aspergers.” (Hansard 09/3/2010).http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/disability-trap

Our MHRA is paid for by the pharmaceutical industry, and largely consists of ex pharmaceutical company experts.

And autistics will find it impossible to communicate side effects, let alone, have them acknowledged and recorded.

Only those that manifest physically, will be discoverable- drooling, restlessness, crying, poo incontinence, impaction, slowness, imbalance, stiffness of joints .

And state druggers, do not do physical examinations and care is by ad hoc, itinerant, prescribed workers.

Anti-psychotic medication is part of an accepted, enforced system of autistic care.

Which produces a huge lucrative, reliable, and increasing market,  and GP’s are now paid by interventions and prescriptions.

Parents and the autistics are given no effective choice.

If, 18 or over, the autistic is deemed ‘incapable’ of refusing treatment under the Mental Capacity Act, if under, parents are forced to medicate on threat of removal of their children by care orders.

Despite public warnings, from experts, at September 2015, this is still the position in the UK, and no one, is attempting to stop this abuse of our most vulnerable.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3219060/Chemical-cosh-scandal-Thousands-patients-no-history-mental-illness-needlessly-given-cocktail-anti-psychotic-drugs.html

The pharmaceutical industry is our third largest.

Profits support our economic growth, and, appear, more important, than its people commodities.

NICE guidelines, do not require a check, or even audit, of the amount, or type of drugs, used by state agencies.

And, are merely guidelines  which can and are ignored.

Prescriptions are at the discretion of individual GPs, and Children and Mental Health Service teams.

Managers of care homes are given a discretion under NICE guidelines, to administer drugs as necessary.

Regulations under the Mental Capacity Act 05 allow any clinical trial of any drug, or combination, on those deemed ‘incapable’ under the Act.

A godsend, to the pharmaceutical industry, as publication of trials, result in drug licences.

So, in this secret, silent, world of state enforced medicine, on those unable to communicate, how can side effects, even be observed, let alone, recorded?

Even when the side-effects kill.

In 2011, the privately run St Andrew’s mental hospital, in Northampton, only appear to have started investigating deaths, after 4 patients died, in less than 7 months.

And, the fourth patient’s, concerned family, instructed a lawyer.

The report to the Care Quality Commission, revealed, a recognised side-effect, of a 41, year old patient’s antipsychotic medication, a faecal impaction, had developed over many months, and, eventually forced his internal organs to shut down, and, an excruciatingly long, and painful death.

The report, had not been revealed in the first coroner’s inquest.

The coroner found systemic failings, contributed to the death, and the hospital’s failure to complete a physical examination, was a “missed opportunity”.

A physical examination, is basic medical care, of any patient.

But absolutely crucial, if you have a patient kept continually on high dosage antipsychotics, who is unable to communicate.

And, you are supposed to be ‘treating’, for a payment of £4,500 per week, tax free.

It is not just, a ‘missed opportunity’.

What is now being done in St Andrews, to avoid future deaths, of their 600 patients, detained under the Mental Health Act, worth 2.5 million per week, tax free?

: “Staff dealing with patients who are taking high-dose antipsychotics, polypharmacy [multiple medication] and in particular clozapine should be familiar with the side-effect profile and be alert to the possibility of a deterioration in physical health that may indicate a potentially serious or life-threatening adverse reaction or side-effect.”

How would such ‘staff’ notice ‘deterioration’, in heavily sedated, bed bound, mentally disabled patients?

With 4 deaths in 7 months, and the lives of 600, at stake, the very least the CQC should have done, was to make frequent medical assessments, mandatory.

The reason for these deaths, would not have, been discovered, or reached the media, had the deceased, not had a concerned family, able to instruct a lawyer.

Under the Mental Capacity Act, as opposed to the Mental Health Act Local Authorities can, and often do, stop all family contact.

The Court of Protection gags all information of the deaths or services of the adults under its protection via the MCA.

Why, in any event, is this drugged encagement, deemed ‘medical’ treatment?

Why are its providers, allowed to charge such extortionate amounts from the public purse, tax free?

And why, are these vulnerable, people, forced to live as tortured cash, and pharma cows for life?

In 2008, a large number of yellow card warnings, cited risperidone, as cause of death in the autistic, and learning disabled.

Today, with reports of 3 a day dying, this must now be far more.

In 2007, the only treatment offered for my daughter by the NHS, was risperidone.

The obvious reasons for her aggression, and unhappiness,a faecal impaction, and inappropriate school, deliberately ignored.

In 2007, I complained to CAMHS, of my then 10 year old daughters side effects, crying, incontinence, breathlessness, black rings under her eyes.

CAMHS informed, they could not have been caused by her risperidone, because they were not on their list of side effects.

On the back of such trials CAMHS assessment centres were built throughout UK providing 12 week assessment ‘pathways’ that only resulted in antipsychotic medication.Termed in literature as ‘control without restraint’.

My daughters unhappiness in her NAS residential school, and a second impaction, were then ignored again in 2012.

Despite, her impaction 3 years earlier, her aggression and a 48 bruise restraint trigger.

And her parents, spending over a year, flagging these up, to NAS, CAMHS, safeguarding authorities, and an independent reviewing officer, and demanding her physical examination.

Issy was not physically examined for an impaction.

Instead she was given anti- depressants, and build up drinks, both, known to cause constipation.

Issy’s PTSD, evidenced by distress, and, repeating the abusive comments of NAS carers, at that time in 2012  was used by CAMHS, NAS, and social services, as evidence of psychosis, to justify a 12 week assessment in a CAMHS care pathway centre, and permanent respiridone medication.

This horror would have happened, had Issy not herself, had enough, and been 16,  too old for a care order.

And, as, not a danger to herself, or others, difficult to section under the MHA, without our consent.

Refused to return to her NAS ‘home’, where, had she, it could not have been long, before she succumbed, to a long and painful death.

But CAMHS, by then, would have pocketed £60,000, and NAS, dependent upon how long Issy lived, £3,500 per week, tax free.

Thankfully, Issy saved her own life.

And,once home, we had her physically examined by our GP, and, cleared her denied impaction, and, removed two undetected, rotten teeth.

Her aggression ceased, except for the PTSD.

The figures in the FDA table above, speak for themselves.

74% of the adults, and 79% of the children affected, died, or were hospitalised, with life threatening reactions, some left permanently damaged.

With 7.8 million prescriptions of risperidol in 2007-8, the horror of the human suffering, these statistics, and Jansen’s 1. 72 billion civil claim settlements represent, is difficult to comprehend.

And for what, expensive chemical lobotomy sedation, with no long term gains?

Despite these shocking adverse effects being revealed by the Federal Drug Agency, the death, and, suffering wrought, by spin, incentives, and high octane sales, grew worse, not better.

Up until 2007, the Federal Drugs Agency had repeatedly warned Jansen against promoting Risperidone for children.

But were ignored.

Instead Jansen instructed its sales representatives to call on child psychiatrists, and children’s mental health facilities to aggressively market Risperdal, as safe and effective, for the symptoms of various childhood disorders such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorders, obsessive compulsive disorder, and autism.

And, then in 2007, the FDA, itself, despite the known side effects, approved risperidol, as effective, and reasonably safe for the studied indications in pediatric patients.

And thus ensured even more deaths and permanent damage as shown in the table above dated to 2008..

Eventually leading in 2013, to Johnson and Johnson, paying out 2.2 billon dollars, in one of the nation’s largest healthcare fraud settlements in U.S. history, for inter alia, the promotion for uses not approved as safe and effective, and payment of kickbacks to physicians, and to the nation’s largest care pharmacy provider.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/johnson-johnson-pay-more-22-billion-resolve-criminal-and-civil-investigations

Think of the billions, that should have been paid out to parents in the UK, but our NHS system precludes this from happening.

The exposure of this fraud, was  forced by private health insurance company claims, not existing in our publically funded but now privatised  NHS.

Unlike the USA, we have no insurance companies acting for us, protecting themselves from claims of those medicated.

20 years ago the USA started, psychiatric drugging of their children, and now one in every 15 enters adulthood, with a serious mental illness.

And half of all those in foster care, are now on prescriptive medicines.

There is research, and anecdotal evidence from carers, that the use of respiridone can itself, cause psychosisin the autistic, justifying its continued use.

So the drug causes  a serious mental disorder you did not have, as an autistic, learning  disabled, ADHD, bipolar person.

In 2013, Janssen-Cilag, applied to the MHRA for a license for risperidone use for ‘irritability in autism’.

But then, the company refused to accept an extremely lucrative UK licence, as it was conditional upon safety monitoring.

The business risk, of monitoring safety, which should, in any event, be, the paramount concern, outweighed, a lucrative UK licence.

Yet, care pathway CAMHS assessment centres, have been expensively built, throughout the country.

They are the only option for the under 16 autistics, mentally disordered/disabled with behavioural problems.

So what is the National Autistic Society’s  advice, on the use of Risperidol ?

NAS website proclaims,

’There is a significant amount of research evidence to suggest that risperidone may be beneficial for the treatment of various problems faced by people with autism, including irritability, repetition and hyperactivity.’

Risperidone, is not licensed for irritability, repetition, or hyperactivity.

And, the NAS website link, into their Research Centre, contains little, or, no evidential support for NAS recommendation of Risperidone as the main/only treatment for autism, let alone a significant amount of research.

Even after 2008, when the European harmonisation of indicators of side effects, restricted its licence, to short term sytomatic treatment for persistent aggression.

Its long term use in children under 18, even for schizophrenia, or bipolar disorder, is not licensed.

There is not, a ‘significant amount of research evidence’, quite the reverse, two recent studies warn of the serious side-effects, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4074627/.

Studies reported in the Lancet in 2008, show little effect on aggression over a placebo http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/articles/antipsychotic-use-questioned-developmentally-disabled

The risk of sudden heart failure, has already resulted in the black boxing of the drug, for the old http://www.drugdangers.com/risperdal/black-box-warning.htm.

Evidence from relatives however shows that similar antipsychotics and even Risperidone are still regularly administered in care homes for the elderly.

We must legislate for such a warning and the end of the standard use of this and other antipsychotics, on our young, most vulnerable, and, least in need of such medication.

NHS’s largest spend is n drugs for the central nervous system– mental health with a staggering £1.95 billion in 2011, the 0.1% ‘fall’ spin is due to removal of two patents.

http://www.pharmafile.com/news/172081/nhs-spending-drugs-fell-2011