1)
Health, Healing, Hospitals & Health
Professionals
2) Pregnancy,
Birth & the Care of Babies and Young Children
3)
Forensic Mental Health & Violence – The Case of Martin
Bryant
4) Complaints about Manly,
5) Complaint about
6) Complaints About
7) Complaint to the
8) Letter to Wendy Edmond, Queensland Minister for
Health
9) Letter to Senator Kay Paterson Re Queensland Health Department
**************************************
1) Health, Healing, Hospitals & Health Professionals
Despite the
arrogant and self-serving claims made by doctors, nurses, social workers and
other supposed authorities on health and healing, the general global state of health
and well-being is deteriorating, not improving, and the true quality of life
enjoyed by and actual care given to babies and young children today (especially
in the richer, developed nations) is appallingly bad. The situation is exactly
the opposite of what most health professionals claim because they are so
conveniently blinded to the truth by their contrived, narrow, rigid, closed,
biased and very limited medical perspective of reality. Although completely
false and misleading, this enables doctors and nurses in particular to
self-importantly maintain their persistent, unfounded delusions of competence,
capability, intelligence and understanding.
Crucially the
medical model of health completely overlooks the vital fact that human beings
are both body and spirit and anyone who denies this or who does not fully
understand its implications and consequences is dangerously deluded and totally
ill-equipped and unfit to be in any position of trust or responsibility for
peoples' lives or their health. Medical and nursing qualifications are
therefore substantially theoretical and worthless, gained by years of
essentially unhealthy study and an extremely imbalanced and artificial
lifestyle which requires a complete denial and repression of students' real needs
and feelings and the memorising of vast amounts of
information largely irrelevant to, and even obstructive of, the true processes
of healing. The approach to the education of doctors and nurses, compelling
them to memorise the names of all the tens of thousands
of various parts of the body, is a classic example of "not being able to
see the forest for the trees." Many behave as though they invented the
human body and all its parts and that their descriptions and names are somehow
absolute and immutable. Academic achievement with its associated emphasis on
mental/cerebral processes is also the worst possible basis upon which to assess
someone's capacity to make ethically sound decisions about the issues of life
and death. True discernment comes from the 'heart', not the 'head', and it is
no wonder that the intellectually obsessed (but spiritually disabled, even
retarded) health professions have created such impossibly difficult
predicaments and moral dilemmas and are guilty of such essential brutality and
inconceivable immorality.
Because
of health professional’s infamous obsession with suppressing symptoms without
attending to and treating underlying causes, they are in action dedicated to
the furthering of suffering and are responsible for the proliferation in the
number, type and severity of so many virulent and difficult to cure diseases. Relatively
simple acute illnesses like diphtheria, measles and whooping cough have now
mutated into much more serious, distressing, expensive, chronic long term
diseases like asthma, AIDS and cancer. The incidence of disease has increased
enormously so that it is difficult to find any child who is healthy throughout
their entire childhood, the natural state of properly cared-for children. Most
health professionals today display a dangerously naïve and superficial approach
to health and healing and have largely lost any intuitive insight and
instinctive understanding. Instead they have unsuccessfully tried to compensate
for this crucial deficiency with a quite bizarre and foolish, ‘scientific’
fixation with weights and measures and a ghoulish preoccupation with analysing substances of a bodily origin. These simplistic
quantitative aspects of assessment are however often irrelevant, misleading and
provide almost no useful information about patient wellbeing and true recovery
(and especially about babies’ thriving). Consequently the advice offered and
the treatment imposed by these Hippocratic hypocrites is understandably
inappropriate, physically and emotionally damaging and over-reactive.
Most health
professionals are not only totally uninvolved in real healing but they
literally work against, disrupt and obstruct the natural physical and emotional
recuperative and self-equilibrating processes of both the body and spirit with
their clumsy, brutal, painful, confusing, arbitrary, perverse and inept
intrusions and the plethora of side effects and future problems they inevitably
cause. Doctors’ so-called 'miraculous' cures, medical
‘breakthroughs' and 'successes' are at best correcting the damage caused by
previous misguided, medical meddling and misinformed mismanagement, but usually
they are just cleverly disguised failures, the usual aggressive suppression of
symptoms. They rarely admit they are wrong or that they don't know or
understand and regularly fabricate diagnoses and invent explanations for
diseases because they are more concerned with appearing to know all the answers
rather than with being accurate and factual. Diseases are said to be
'incurable' due to their own ignorance, incompetence and morbid pessimism and
because their own assumptions and approach are fundamentally flawed. Also
groups of symptoms (often with similar underlying causes) are arbitrarily
labeled 'syndromes' to make it appear that they understand them and somehow
have them under control. This approach of course ensures that the health
professions will keep the gullible public bluffed, maintain their hold over
their lives and continue to profit from their unrelieved afflictions, suffering
and distress.
Health
professionals congratulate themselves on maintaining life irregardless of the
distress this may cause their patients, the long term suffering or the
financial cost involved and life is prolonged artificially at any cost. In the
process they have completely destroyed the proper dignity of dying at home,
surrounded by family and friends only. Also the quality and enjoyment of life
have been degraded enormously and it is now accepted that as people grow old
they will unavoidably and inevitably contract ailments and diseases that will
eventually cause their death. Old people today merely "reap what they
sow", a just reward for a lifetime of selfishness, gluttony, laziness,
pretence, dishonesty, emotional denial, irresponsibility and hypocrisy. Many
act as though they own their patients' bodies and have the right to touch,
examine, poke, prod and inject them whenever and wherever it is convenient to
them, often without prior approval, genuine excuse, apology or proper
consideration. Hospitals and doctors' surgeries are all structured and ordered
to suit the selfish convenience, greed and laziness of the staff and patients'
existences are expected to fit in with this, the exact opposite of real care
and concern.
The truth is
that the majority of those in the health professions are mainly concerned with
their own grossly inflated incomes, with their position and power over their
patients, with the evasion of their primary responsibilities as adults, spouses
and parents, with their pretence of concern for other people and with avoiding
any real and active contribution to this world. Despite the pompous and patronising posturing and self-important pretentiousness by
the worst of them, these smug, presumptuous, arrogant and dangerous impostors
know very little and in real terms do even less, accepting all their fees and
salaries fraudulently under false pretences. Generally speaking they are part
of the problem, not part of the solution.
Anyone who has
even the simplest and most basic understanding about the human body and spirit
knows that all sickness and disease is caused by the following easy to
understand and simple to deal with, common underlying causes:-
1) The impoverished quality of life accepted
and endured without question by so many people, particularly those in all
modern cities with the monotonous, rigid daily routines and the inescapable
noise, chaos, awful pollution and smell, lack of privacy, danger, disease,
ugliness and absence of unspoiled, natural beauty and order. This is by no
means restricted to the cities, however, as most people in country areas also
choose much the same inappropriate, inflexible, unhealthy and artificial
lifestyles as those in the cities, equally lacking in true variety and
spontaneity. So many farmers actually do their level best to destroy with their
noisy, dirty, expensive, dangerous and unnecessary machines all that could be
peaceful, pollution-free and pristine about their environment and deliberately
avoid patterns of sensible living in tune with the seasons and with their real
needs and the needs of their stock and the land. Most farms today are just like
rural factories.
2) The insane approach to and foolish
assumptions about infant feeding. Instead of listening and responding to their
basic, simple needs for peace, quiet, gentleness, patience, lots of carrying
and holding 'in arms', undisturbed rest lying down (privately in a bassinette
or cot, not in public in a stroller!) and a clean, tidy, uncluttered and
pleasant smelling home, babies are stupidly considered to have only one
feeling, hunger, which is not really a feeling at all, and they are effectively
force fed just to keep them quiet, irrespective of the true reasons for their
distress. In this way everyone is conditioned from conception to desperately deny
and aggressively repress how they really feel about their physically unhealthy,
emotionally unfulfilled, deficient and meaningless lives, not even
acknowledging their true feelings to themselves. As a consequence the standard
of parenting is deteriorating and there is less and less real love or care in
today's homes and less honesty in relationships.
3) Repressed feelings of anger, pain, fear
and guilt become stored in body tissue and this severely compromises our
natural resistance and immunity to bacterial and viral infections and
eventually causes some form of physical, emotional/behavioural
(incorrectly referred to as 'mental') disease or disorder.
4) Because so
many people choose to try to escape how they really feel, intense anger, fear,
pain and guilt are only ever expressed indirectly. In response to their
emotional denial and desperation to avoid acknowledging, facing and coping with
how they really feel, they adopt habits and behaviour
that are at best unhealthy and at worst self-destructive. Examples of these are
overeating and drinking, smoking, taking drugs, being inactive and sedentary
(often indoors), ‘working' (often just making money) in unhealthy, even
dangerous environments, being obsessed with the pursuit of fame, power or with
childish sports, hobbies or pastimes that are all an actual distraction from
reality. Alternatively repressed feelings involuntarily erupt in sudden,
uncontrollable, misdirected outbursts.
Not surprisingly
most doctors and nurses know absolutely nothing about how real love and care
maintains the body and spirit's natural resistance to all sickness and disease
without exception and which heals all afflictions, whether physical or
emotional/behavioural ('mental'). Someone who is
really healthy themselves and therefore able to help and advise others without
hypocrisy will be well, slim, patient, direct, firm, gentle, peaceful, honest,
open, relaxed and self-aware and have a full head of hair, reasonable eyesight
and at least most of their own teeth - their families will be similarly healthy
also. Finally they will work outside some of the time doing something physical,
meaningful and active, balancing the time spent indoors talking and sitting. In
contrast the majority of health professionals have absolutely no real personal
commitment to their own health nor have the mastery of their own bodies and
spirits even though this is the first essential step towards learning how to
care for and advise other people. Many are outrageous hypocrites, pale, grossly
overweight (or far too thin), all spend little time in healthy fresh air and
sunshine and most of their lives are spent indoors in air-conditioned
environments around other sick people, sitting and talking. It is no wonder so
many need glasses and so many of the males lose their hair at a young age and
they are all addicted to some or all of the following - food, drink,
cigarettes, sedatives, stimulants or worse, the most dangerous and most
destructive 'drugs' of today's society - the pursuit of fame, the approval of others,
position, power and the accumulation of money and material possessions. In fact
health professionals' physical, emotional and spiritual health is worse than
that of the community at large.
Modern attitudes
and beliefs about health and fitness are mistaken, misleading, absurdly
simplistic and superficial and all competitive sport, games and exercising by
teenagers and supposed adults are childish, contrived, wasteful, useless,
unnecessary, self-indulgent and masochistic. Self-centred,
hedonistic, irresponsible, emotionally ungrown aged
children engage in (or watch) these repetitive, boring and essentially
meaningless activities of no intrinsic value or worth as they obsessively
compete and try to win in order to avoid facing their real inner feelings of
insecurity, impotence, inadequacy and inferiority, unsuccessfully trying to
indirectly off-load their perilous burden of anger and pain in the process.
They become hard, rough, tense, tight, closed, emotionally shut-off, frantic
mutants inappropriately covered in excessive amounts of cosmetic muscle tissue
not productively used for anything necessary or needed. In addition they
greedily waste the most enormous amount of energy, time, money and other
resources which could be much more productively and fairly used elsewhere to
feed, clothe, house, transport and otherwise help those genuinely in need,
especially the children, one of whom dies every 3 seconds from the want of so
little.
Few people alive
today have the necessary courage and integrity to face the truth about the
medical and nursing professions and most continue to abdicate responsibility
for their own health with disastrous consequences. However all those who:
- choose to be open and honest with all their feelings and
constructively express these feelings without violence
- learn to properly love and care for themselves without indulgence in
keeping with their real needs and change any aspect of their lives and
relationships accordingly, so living somewhere clean, tidy, unpolluted, quiet
and peaceful around natural beauty
- learn to be in the right place at the right time for the right reasons
(and who avoid being in the wrong place at the wrong time for the wrong
reasons)
- only ever express their passion as lovemaking in a long term, heterosexual,
faithful relationship (and so avoid the dishonesty, depravity, desperation and
mutual exchange of anger, pain, fear and guilt referred to as sex)
- make an active, unselfish and meaningful contribution to this world
will invariably be
really healthy and full of spirit all their lives and will die in peace and
dignity, unafraid and unafflicted. This is the
essence of understanding, preventing and treating all sickness and disease and
it couldn't be simpler, easier to understand and implement nor any less
expensive. Real healing through love and care in action!!!
Love is clean,
tidy, organised, simple living with genuine
consideration for and unselfish devotion to the needs of others and real
concern for and avoidance of indulgence, gluttony, avarice, waste, duplication,
excess, inequity, injustice, violence, pollution and environmental destruction.
Everything else is dishonesty, laziness, selfishness, greed, irresponsibility,
hypocrisy and pretence accompanied by the usual easy, empty words, the
fabricated lies, implausible excuses and platitudinous self-justifications so
common today.
Love is a feeling translated into action - without the action there is
no love.
In contrast the
medical profession encourages people to delude themselves into believing that
they can escape the consequences of unhealthy, emotionally dishonest and
irresponsible behaviour by later relying on their
artificial, expensive and painful treatments of which surgery is a typical
example. If you genuinely care for people you never indulge them in this way
but rather clearly point out the eventual implications of destructive and
irresponsible lifestyle choices and allow them to choose for themselves, given
proper, informed assistance and encouragement. True compassion and care never
involves giving people an ‘easy way out’ and doctors and nurses who treat the
injured in wars, for example, are equally culpable for the killing by their
complicit support. Without exception, medical interference inevitably causes
more disease, more suffering, more waste and more expense and health
professionals rarely consider or take responsibility for the consequences of
their interventions, especially the disastrous emotional implications of their
so-called ‘cures’ and how these degrade the actual quality and enjoyment of
life - short term apparent gains for horrendous long term losses!
Doctors
can never leave anything alone and they literally torment, torture and
experiment upon patients in their infantile pursuit of recognition and
unfeeling, idle curiosity, cruel sadism, vicarious voyeurism and detached
disinterest. The best example of this is the totally unnecessary and completely
avoidable brutal violation, deprivation, neglect and criminal abuse of
premature babies that, apart from abortions (the murder of unborn infants), is
without doubt the most monstrous and inexcusable violation of human rights in
the world today. Typically this atrocity is perpetrated against the smallest,
most vulnerable, defenceless, sensitive and precious
of GOD's gifts. Together with irresponsible,
unprepared and selfish parents who do not ensure that the pregnant mother and
baby have all their physical, emotional and spiritual needs met, doctors and
nurses cause prematurity directly or by default with their counter-productive
advice and destructive intrusions before and during pregnancy. Premature births
are completely avoidable and the only reason that no-one in either the medical
or nursing professions understands this (nor wants to acknowledge) it is that
they are all blinded and shut-off to the emotional and spiritual realities of
life and relationships.
Infants
are born prematurely due to a number of simple, easy to understand and overcome
factors. Many are effectively expelled from the womb by mothers whose own
burden of repressed anger, pain and fear has built up to such an intolerable
level that spontaneous labour begins too early. Their
own physical and emotional well-being may also have become seriously
compromised and their baby will always have had to endure an enormous amount of
suffering and distress in the womb. In some cases pregnancy is disrupted by
physical factors caused by overweight mothers who are inactive and/or exercise
too little, those who are undernourished, who indulge in excessive, rough or
frantic exercise or activity that is not gentle and careful, those who abuse
alcohol or drugs and those who irresponsibly continue with their careers and
selfish lives. However without doubt the greatest culprits in this regard are
interfering doctors who intrude in so many dangerous and inappropriate ways –
by inducing labour artificially too early for
supposedly ‘overdue’ infants who turn out to be not even full term! Then there
are the premature multiple births of undersized infants that are a common
outcome of the artificial induction of conception using fertility drugs,
artificial insemination and 'in vitro' techniques - doctors typically take no
responsibility for the horrendous subsequent consequences of their criminal
interference. Finally natural childbirth has been debased and perverted into a
surgical operation with caesarean section deliveries which deny babies the
vital transition of the experience of birth. Doing this on demand and pandering
to the selfish convenience of indulged females who wish to avoid going through
the necessary, growing pain of natural delivery and escape accountability for
nine months of prior criminal irresponsibility, is infamous.
Following the
torment, savagery and roughness of the usual modern pregnancy and typical
hospital birth, premature babies after delivery are subject to the most
horrifically brutal and callous mistreatment imaginable in the so-called
'special care' units or stables in hospitals all over the world. Here they are
completely denied every single one of their simplest, obvious, most basic and
important primary needs - undisturbed rest, clean, tidy, quiet, peaceful,
pleasant smelling and dimly lit surroundings, gentle, careful, slow and
considered handling, constant holding, warm, soft snug clothing and bedding and
regular and frequent breast feeding. It is hard to conceive of a worse
environment in which to put these unfortunates nor a
less appropriate way of dealing with their situation. Exposed naked in plastic
box-like humidicribs or laid out like dolls on open
trays and blinded by constant bright fluorescent lighting, premature babies are
viciously violated, absolutely terrified, literally assaulted and treated as
though they have no real feelings at all. They are constantly disturbed,
repeatedly interfered with and continuously distressed by medical and nursing
staff with their constant unnecessary invasions of their space and incredibly
rough and impatient handling. Most staff realise what
they are doing yet in their pride, arrogance, stupidity and impertinence they
choose to excuse, gloss over, rationalise, justify
and lie about what is essentially a sadistic and illegal crime thoroughly
deserving of imprisonment. At best these grossly overindulged, thoughtless,
unaware, noisy and emotionally shut-off and hardened individuals behave with
thoughtless disregard, criminal negligence and inconceivable inconsideration.
Many are behaviourally disturbed, pathologically
dangerous, certifiably deranged, deliberately cruel and rough sadists who are
fully aware of what they are doing and of the implications and effects of their
actions - most should never be allowed anywhere near any living creature
without the closest and most stringent supervision and monitoring. They
actually resent making any concessions whatsoever for those little people they
are paid to care for and refuse to make any real effort to be careful, quiet,
considerate, patient, gentle and diligent. Any aware, caring adult is
absolutely horrified, disgusted, outraged, infuriated and sickened at how staff
chooses to behave every day in every single one of these places of systematic
sadism.
Babies are
deprived of essential breast-feeding or even of breast milk with its vital
physical nourishment and the natural defence it
provides against infection. Instead they are unnecessarily fed through tubes
painfully inserted through the nose, stupidly and inappropriately given vast
quantities of fluid intravenously as saline or sucrose drips, covered with
wires and monitors, have enormously painful, uncomfortable and intrusive
catheters, oxygen head boxes or respirators, sample bags and blood tests
imposed upon them or inserted into their bodily orifices and are generally
mistreated like sub-human objects in some sick, twisted and depraved scientific
experiment. The sole criterion of ‘progress’ and the only measurement of
‘improvement’ is as usual the foolish preoccupation with weight, as though
their gravitational attraction to the centre of the earth somehow provided an
indication of real growth, health or recovery. Weighing them is not only
totally unnecessary but also distressing and yet another excuse to disturb
them.
Because
premature babies are not supposed to have been born, what they really need is
to be provided with an environment as much like the womb as possible for
roughly the same number of weeks as their prematurity. This sensible, logical
and straightforward approach, apparently beyond the intellectual grasp of the
average health professional, means that principally and most importantly these
babies should to be continuously, gently and peacefully held by one of their
parents or other family members for days, weeks and even months if necessary
unless sound asleep or until well settled. When put down they need to be made
to feel safe and secure by surrounding them on all sides with pillows or
rolled-up soft bedding. They should be wrapped in soft, natural swaddling
material like cotton flannelette, kept warm (not hot or cold), be only exposed
to dim, soft lighting (not bright or fluorescent), handled extremely slowly,
gently and carefully, changed regularly, bathed and massaged at least twice a
day, introduced gradually to a little filtered sunlight, never prodded, poked,
injected or interfered with in any way and never subjected to any loud noise,
sudden movement or unpleasant smell.
In other words
their primary needs are to feel safe and secure, to get plenty of undisturbed
sleep, to be breast fed by their peaceful mother (they should be fed often and
frequently, a small quantity each time) and finally to be allowed and
encouraged to express any and all repressed feelings relating to what has
happened to them during pregnancy and birth. If they will not or cannot take to
the breast, they need to be slowly and patiently fed expressed breast milk
using a tiny spoon or eye dropper many, many times each day, a little at a
time. If they really needed oxygen this could be given by gently holding a
small, comfortable mask over their mouths either continuously or for regular
intervals as required - the plastic oxygen head boxes used in hospitals are
quite horrible, distressing and uncomfortable. If this sensible, practical,
humane and inexpensive approach to real care was taken with premature babies,
those that survived would improve rapidly and respond without any of the
inevitable appalling side-effects of the mistreatment given to them in
hospitals. In fact parents could realistically expect that their baby would be
quite normal by their originally anticipated birth date or even sooner.
It is obviously
acknowledged that the very tiny premature babies would not survive but being
back with their MAKER would be infinitely more preferable for so many suffering
children than to be literally and deliberately tormented by these dangerously
deluded deviates in a premature babies ward not to mention the emotional and
physical side effects, injuries and permanent disabilities so many suffer
afterwards as a consequence. The parents of premature infants who do not
survive even when given proper, sensible, inexpensive and devoted care need to
come to terms with what they have themselves done to their baby during
pregnancy and birth, mourn their baby properly, learn from the experience and
so become better parents in future - the death of their child would not then be
a waste. What impertinent effrontery and fraudulent misrepresentation it is for
doctors and nurses to imply that they are caring, effective, competent and
indispensable when the truth about the treatment of premature babies is
considered! Keeping these tiny human beings alive is a crime and the real
motives for so doing are not related to any genuine concern for the babies
themselves but rather reflect a dishonest desire by all concerned, doctors,
nurses and parents, to avoid coming to terms with their own reprehensible
misconduct and irresponsibility in causing the problem in the first place and
to not confront and deal with their own fears and pain about death and dying.
When these
unfortunate infants finally escape from the hospital, they carry an enormous
additional unresolved burden of unexpressed fear, rage and pain as a result of
what has been done to them - they always have a particular deprived look about
them which will remain as long as they are denied the opportunity to express
how they feel at length. Few people today really understand or want to
understand the horrifying extent of such damage nor what can be and must be
done to heal it - it took for example nearly two years to undo and rectify what
was done to one baby who was only three weeks early, who weighed over 5 lbs at
birth and who was only in the hospital for four short weeks. A very small
premature baby would take ten years or more to properly heal! None of the
accepted treatment of premature babies today is necessary for their survival;
it is just a particularly vicious and inexcusable form of child abuse.
Doctors and
nurses may have the vast majority of people in society bluffed, effectively
deceived and scared into silent submission and passive acceptance of their
assumptions, methods and treatment but in effect all they have done is create a
nightmare where increasingly difficult, complicated and expensive decisions and
interventions need to be made. Because doctors are so fond of interfering,
experimenting, ‘playing GOD’ and saving life at any
cost without any proper concern for the repercussions, they prolong the agony
and distress of so many vulnerable little people. If they all stopped intruding
into matters that don't concern them and that they are hopelessly untrained and
emotionally ill-equipped to deal with or have any useful opinions about, if
they stopped taking away parents' responsibility for their own children's
health and well-being, if they stopped giving parents an ‘easy way’ out which
ends up causing enormous distress to the baby and if they had the real faith
and integrity to allow babies to die when appropriate, the current situation
would simply not exist at all.
Most gynaecologists, obstetricians, paediatricians,
midwives and general practitioners never really help women during pregnancy
except in the most simple and obvious ways but often mislead, deceive, give
totally damaging and counter-productive advice to and prescribe unnecessary and
dangerous medication for their patients instead of the most obvious simple and
sensible assistance. In fact their treatment of pregnant women invariably gives
rise to the very problems for both the mother and the baby in pregnancy and
during labour and birth that they purport to so
marvelously remedy. This of course guarantees that their grossly excessive
incomes and undeserved status and positions in society will be maintained and
ensures that pregnant women and their husbands will continue to rely and depend
unnecessarily upon their inappropriate and unneeded intrusions and
interference.
Doctors and
nurses set no real limits for nor give any effective firm direction to pregnant
women, indulging them shamefully by allowing and encouraging them to behave in
ways that are clearly detrimental and damaging to babies’ health, before and
after birth. At best the health professionals involved mutter ineffectual
platitudes of feigned concern and at worst they enjoy taking their own rage and
pain about their own pregnancy, birth and early childhood out on vulnerable and
defenceless women and their unborn children. All
those who refuse to face the truth about their own childhoods will simply
impose a worse version upon any babies or children unfortunate enough to be in
their control. In effect gynaecologists,
obstetricians, midwives and general practitioners support mothers-to-be with
the distress they cause their babies and abdicate their legal and moral
responsibilities even worse than the baby's father. In general health
professionals and especially doctors and nurses are literally accessories both
before and after the fact to an enormous amount of scandalous child
deprivation, neglect and abuse, as a group by far the most culpable offenders
worldwide.
Gynaecologists, obstetricians,
midwives and general practitioners’ obsession with examining women’s most
personal and private areas is clearly a twisted and deviate perversion. All
internal examinations are completely avoidable and this is an unnecessary,
embarrassing and humiliating invasion of any girl or woman's space. In fact male
gynaecologists and obstetricians are real users of
women who molest and interfere with their patients under the fraudulent guise
of professional 'competence' and 'detachment'. These specious specialists have
managed to fool most people into believing that in becoming doctors, they are
somehow 'miraculously' transformed from having any improper feelings about
naked women. The sordid truth is otherwise and would be obvious to all if the
enormous number of undisclosed, improper sexual encounters between these frauds
and their patients were revealed. Any male who could be so dissociated from his
feelings would be unfit to be around any vulnerable and defenceless
mother-to-be anyway. Females who similarly specialise
are no better and most have unacknowledged lesbian tendencies or other
unhealthy, unresolved emotional issues.
Pregnant women
mistreat, deprive and neglect their babies who are extremely sensitive and
completely defenceless, tiny human beings and
obstruct them from proper growth and development by:-
- smoking or taking drugs of any kind
- drinking more than a glass or two of alcohol (always with a meal) or
more than two cups of weak tea and coffee a day
- not eating a generous and balanced diet with
an adequate intake of calcium and iron especially
- being overweight or too thin
- standing or sitting for long periods
- being otherwise occupied at this time - work
is not an appropriate description as being pregnant is a full time
responsibility in itself
- rushing around frantically
- not getting plenty of gentle, natural
exercise (walking and swimming)
- not spending several hours every day with
their husbands (and/or other responsible men) discussing and dealing openly
with how they really feel
- not being gentle with themselves and relaxed
and peaceful during pregnancy
- denying and so repressing all the intense
feelings that are inevitably catalysed by having
another human being actually growing inside you.
Not only does this result in behaviour and actions that are unloving and distressing to
the unborn baby, he or she also shares the mother’s nervous system and is
literally tormented by her unresolved emotional state.
Prematurity and
all deformities, handicaps and disabilities in new born babies are the sole
result of an inappropriate, unloving and harmful physical and emotional
environment in the womb during pregnancy and during labour
and it is time both parents and doctors took full responsibility for the
results of their actions and inaction. Doctors and nurses in particular cause
many of the problems that they use to frighten expecting parents into believing
that hospital birth is the safest - in fact home birth is the only safe,
secure, loving, caring, sensible, private, practical and cost effective choice
for responsible parents in every single respect. Only selfish, lazy, abdicated,
uninvolved, ill-informed, misled and naive parents could or ever would
countenance the horrendous environment of a hospital, especially those depraved
dens of deliberate deprivation and torment, the maternity wards of all large,
city hospitals with their hard, clinical, antiseptic surroundings, bright
lights, unpleasant smells and nurseries of terrified, encapsulated infants.
Hospitals are so
obviously the worst possible environments in which to treat the sick or in
which to put women at their most vulnerable - just before, during or just after
giving birth. Problems in labour are always
due to a lack of proper preparation before and after conception and during
pregnancy, most often caused by the intense feelings that arise during this
extraordinary time of potential growth. Having another human being actually
growing inside you inevitably brings up a great deal of repressed fear, anger
and pain that needs to be shared and discharged constructively. Anxiety, unease
and distress are also a reasonable response to the inconsideration and
intrusion of the hospital staff, to the inappropriate, alien nature of this
environment and to the emotional (and often physical) absence of a concerned,
involved and protective man - not just the usual useless, ineffectual,
emotionally abdicated and immature males. Any real man, husband and father,
with a small amount of diligent, responsible preparation and understanding,
could do a better job of delivering his own children on his own than any
obstetrician or hospital trained midwife alive today providing he began his
preparation and gave his support, encouragement and protection to his wife (and
unborn child) from conception. This is certainly not the best way to have a birth
at home but is infinitely more preferable for everyone than having a birth in
any hospital or even at home with an unsuitable midwife (as so many are).
A proper midwife
is a clean, tidy, organised, quiet, peaceful,
relaxed, active, patient, unobtrusive, aware, helpful and practical married
woman with a strong, faithful, sound marriage (to a man!!!) and with several
breast-fed children of her own who were born at home without fuss and with no
need for anaesthetics. This is the sort of real
experience necessary to support and assist pregnant women through the whole of
pregnancy, labour and the first few weeks of their
baby’s lives. Single females (and worse, any males) outside the immediate
family who interfere in and intrude upon the privacy and intimacy of birth do
so for a whole range of twisted, self-centred,
dishonest, unsavoury and even sexually perverted
motives, none of which have anything to do with helping the baby or mother.
All hospitals
today are largely staffed by fat (or skinny), unhealthy, noisy, lazy, selfish,
inconsiderate, careless, unreliable, terse, rude, frantic, rough, coarse,
intrusive, immature, attention-seeking, manipulative, trouble-making, ignorant,
incompetent and emotionally shut-off staff who disguise their lack of true compassion,
concern, commitment and understanding with a pretence of busy efficiency and/or
fake, deceitful friendliness, with smug, self-satisfied complacency,
impertinent, patronising arrogance and well practised, guilt-based disapproval. In truth they hate
giving appropriately, discriminate against, deprive and play games with those
patients most vulnerable and most in need yet indulge, favour,
pander to and ingratiate themselves to those least deserving (those like
themselves or like versions of themselves and/or their own parents), most have
appalling standards of self-care, they love to sit, gossip and do the absolute
minimum, behave as though they own the resources they are responsible for which
are eked out begrudgingly to patients and act as though they are doing patients
an enormous favour in just doing what they are paid
to do.
Nowhere is the
above more true or relevant nor the disastrous implications more obvious than
in the area of Mental Health. As with the medical and nursing professions in general,
many mental health professionals are also small spirited, relatively
insignificant and unimportant people operating well beyond their limits of
useful experience, relevant knowledge, spiritual capacity and innate ability.
In fact the calibre of those working in mental health
and especially in the public psychiatric hospital systems today is abysmally
poor and most staff are very ordinary and totally unsuitable people having much
less spirit and intrinsic worth than many of their patients. Most have deplorable
standards of self-care, no dedication or commitment to their own physical,
emotional/behavioural ('mental') and spiritual health
and are addicted to excessive eating and drinking, to inertia and to tobacco,
alcohol and other drug abuse. Some are not just overweight but grossly obese, a
clear and inevitable consequence of gluttony and inactivity, and live and work
in mess, filth and squalor with appalling standards of hygiene, cleanliness and
order. Despite the current fashionable trend to discount these personal
self-care factors as irrelevant, in fact this obvious hypocrisy and
irresponsibility seriously if not completely compromises their ability to
effectively and efficiently fulfill their paid responsibilities and to see
clearly as to what patients really need. There is virtually no requirement that
staff demonstrate a prior proven ability to care for
their own bodies and spirits yet this is a vital prerequisite for being fit and
able to do this demanding and difficult but highly fulfilling and satisfying
job well.
Most staff are aggressively sedentary, stoically avoid anything
physically active or useful, really hate to serve and so do considerably less
than the absolute minimum required for patients in their care. This is why they
inappropriately promote so-called 'independence' for patients, an excuse for
their own laziness and lack of dedication and devotion to their work. So many
units today are not patient-centred but run for the
selfish benefit, convenience and emotional expedience of staff. Because they
are so underutilised and guilty, many complain about
how difficult life is for them and how poorly they are paid despite most
psychiatric units being a mismanaged chaos apparently run by an unsupervised
rabble of marauding menaces. What mental health staff do best is to isolate
themselves in the nurses stations ('fish bowls'), drink endless cups of tea and
coffee (which none of them need!), hold interminable meetings and use patients'
lives as a vicarious, voyeuristic distraction from the monotony, meaningless
and loveless nature of their own impoverished existences. Despite how much help
patients need all the time, when asked or needed to do anything,
they invariably make excuses, protract and postpone, behaviour
that is reasonably infuriating to patients who see the lies and dishonesty
underneath. Everything is delayed and patients are rarely kept fully informed
of what is happening and why - alternatively insignificant details are
unnecessarily and infuriatingly explained in exhausting detail. When patients
understandably and justifiably complain about or object to staff decisions or
actions that are inconsistent, arbitrary, perverse, unreasonable, unfair,
unjust, preferential, discriminatory or obstructive, the staff
typically fabricate implausible or untruthful explanations and rationalisations. Patients who reasonably react to this
harassment and effective provocation, who continue to protest, complain or put
forward some genuine grievance, are then (mis)labelled as "irritable (what sane person wouldn't be
in these circumstances?!), abusive, argumentative, defiant, belligerent (are
they ever!), limits-testing (do they ever!) and
manipulative" (are they ever!). If patients still persist, the staff when
cornered then get angry in response to their own guilt and there are always
recriminations as a result, the most common being seclusion, an increase in
medication (which patients invariably hate as it makes them feel appallingly
bad), a longer stay in hospital and increased hostility or even a vicious
vendetta by staff.
There is simply
no protection, redress nor adequate recourse for patients within any of the
public health systems and staff often lie about what
patients say or do to escape accountability for their own actions. Channels of
appeal like the Official Visitors, Health Review and Ombudsman Offices and
Human Rights Commission are absolutely useless and staff are never held to
account in this cosy, incestuous system - in fact
these organisations make it worse by their refusal to
be fair, impartial, just and diligent, their inaction and ineffectuality. The
worst mental health staff play petty power games and
are impertinent, arrogant, nasty, hostile, rude, provocative, cruel, sarcastic
and objectionable, physically and emotionally violent and selfish and totally
unaware and inconsiderate of space. They make fun of, ridicule and patronise patients (who are supposed to be suffering from
an illness), have major unresolved issues of their own with the opposite gender
in particular and the female staff especially are demanding, game-playing,
trouble making, devious and destructive. All this is real, actual violence far
worse than much of what the patients have been detained and medicated for! Many
staff shout, talk at the top of their voices especially when patients are
trying to eat, watch TV or otherwise concentrate, walk into their rooms without
knocking, sometimes bursting in without warning like invading terrorists about
to take hostages, are physically intimidating, petulant, demanding, childish
and highly ego-centric. Most treat patients' bodies and the ward area as though
it is their own domain and personal fiefdom and expect patients to be on call
at their selfish and often arbitrary whim. Patients are often treated like
annoying but necessary irrelevancies or distractions from the real business. In
contrast it is patients who need to have concessions made for them, who are
most sensitive, vulnerable and under most stress, not staff. Both staff and
facilities are there for patients' benefit, not the reverse - without the
patients there would be no reason for staff.
Many psychiatric
registrars, consultants and nurses themselves are emotionally aloof, detached,
distant, highly controlled, immature, 'flat-line' and lacking in true compassion,
empathy and kindness. In effect they are emotional escapists desperately
determined to live in rigid denial and as a consequence are very shut-off and
hard with a diminished capacity to experience any feelings at all or to relate
on any significant level whatsoever. At best they ‘‘think’’ their emotions
intellectually or endlessly talk about them in words but do not feel,
acknowledge nor constructively express and so discharge them in an open,
honest, direct and non-violent way. Consequently they have little or no
self-awareness themselves and this impacts
disastrously on their ability to empathise with,
relate to, understand, counsel and help their patients with their own intense
feelings of anger, pain, fear, guilt or even joy. These repressed feelings
however are the key underlying causal factors that have given rise to the
patients’ psychiatric health problems that required their admission to hospital
and/or the need for treatment in the first place.
Many psychiatric
staff and especially psychiatrists affect a completely contrived outward facade
very different from who they really are and how they really feel. Many look
down on and see themselves as entirely separate people from their patients, as
having no problems or emotional, behavioural or relationship
difficulties of their own and their approach and attitude is often closed, patronising, suspicious, insular, guarded and defensive. It
is not surprising that the units demonstrate a climate of ‘them versus us’, a
situation that is entirely the responsibility of the staff. All this completely
unrealistic, unnatural, artificial and dishonest perspective fosters an
unhealthy atmosphere of mistrust and unreality and totally pre-empts any true
success in healing. In fact many of the staff exhibit some or all of the
following:-
- a neglected personal appearance with minimal
efforts at grooming
- a lack of emotional affect, a blunting of
emotional response, an inability to communicate the quality and strength of
their emotional attachments and a failure to emotionally contact others
- rigidity of thought - intolerance of
openness, honesty and of differences in perspective, spiritual beliefs and
lifestyle
- a vicious and spiteful overreaction to constructive comment
or reasonable criticism by patients or their families - malicious misuse and
abuse of power
- covert, deceitful and sudden, irrational
changes in behaviour
- lives characterised
by social withdrawal except for contact with their own kind.
All these are
indicative symptoms of at best a severe, chronic behaviour
disorder.
The
appalling and frightening fact is that by their own
evaluative criteria and authoritative references it is reasonable to conclude a
confident diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenic psychosis for the worst
psychiatric staff, a not inconsiderable number. In fact, like so many police,
prison officers, probation & parole officers, teachers and most social
workers and case managers in child welfare, many mental health professionals
deliberately seek their positions in the first place as these provide them with
an unsupervised and unrestrained opportunity to be violent without fear of
reprisals or accountability. They flagrantly abuse their entrusted power by
offloading all their unfaced, repressed anger, pain,
fear and guilt onto vulnerable and defenceless
patients already in crisis, the very people they are paid to look after,
focusing against them and misusing them as convenient targets for all the
unresolved feelings they refuse to deal with from their own private lives.
Cruelty, sadism, true depravity and the regular misuse of physical force or the
threat thereof is commonplace and involve a majority of staff - many staff are
cowardly thugs and bullies who really enjoy this. Instead of setting patients
firm but gentle limits and using seclusion as a productive, necessary
opportunity to give everyone a break, they suddenly 'snap' and grab people
(like so many police) and later become 'nice' again as though nothing has
happened.
Deplorable and
indefensible double standards in treatment and diagnosis exist and staff have unrealistic expectations of patients when
compared to what they expect of themselves and their colleagues. Like all
guilty hypocrites, they "strain at a gnat and swallow a camel" - that
is, they make a big fuss of minor patient misbehaviour
and difficulties yet casually overlook, treat as unimportant or off-handedly
ignore serious, major shortcomings, problems or misconduct of their own. There
is no consistency in management attitude and behaviour
with arbitrary changes to style, rules, attitude, treatment and general climate
depending on who is in charge at the time, what shift is on.
Without doubt
there are a number of medical and nursing staff in
every hospital unit who willingly cooperate with corrupt police to apprehend
and detain people selected for their particular mistreatment. Those persecuted
in this way are usually people who stand up for themselves, those who object,
protest or criticise police impropriety or who offend
their political or spiritual masters. They are then assessed, confined
involuntarily and often forcibly medicated by particular, compliant nurses and
doctors based upon clearly false or fabricated misinformation provided by the
police upon which they base their predictable
diagnosis. When in hospital, these patients are regularly provoked, denied
legal entitlements, threatened, assaulted and unnecessarily medicated. It is no
exaggeration to say that around 60% of hospital admissions are unnecessary and
a gross infringement of basic human rights and/or corruptly motivated and it is
not an indication of incipient paranoia to believe that there is a very cosy conspiracy between the worst police and their mental
health counterparts.
Many
psychiatrists have a very short span of attention, a low tolerance for
ambiguity and detail, they are appallingly bad
listeners and misconstrue, misread and deliberately misrepresent vital details
about patients' lives, personal and diagnostic history and behaviour.
In fact, projection, the discerned perception in patients of beliefs, behaviour, feelings and ideas that are really true of
themselves, is absolutely rife in the global mental health system as indicated
by the enormous variation in diagnostic conclusions made at the same time by
different doctors and nurses about a particular patient. Staff
regularly introduce all their own issues, biases and emotional agendas
into their professional responsibilities with disastrous diagnostic distortions
and other serious implications for patients' assessment and treatment. Nurses
and doctors regularly document false information on patients files and records
which reflect their own highly distorted perceptions and twisted perspective of
reality, often based upon guilt of their own that they are desperate to avoid
facing. In this sense they put onto patients what is really true of themselves. Some also spitefully use the daily notes to
cause trouble for, increase the medication of and generally play deceitful
games with patients that they have taken an arbitrary dislike for, those that
they are jealous of or threatened by and those who stand up for themselves or
other patients (labelled "interfering with the
treatment of") and those who speak or write the truth or make complaints.
All this is most
unhealthy, counterproductive and even dangerous, particularly so with
spiritual/religious beliefs which the vast majority of psychiatric staff are
eminently unfit, unqualified and unsuited to assess, appreciate and understand
despite their obvious arrogance and self-opinionation
to the contrary. In fact their own various psychiatric
theories and belief structures themselves literally constitute "a
problematic ideation that is both unreal and unable to withstand close clinical
analysis". For example, psychiatric staff have absolutely no idea about
what actually causes voices, delusions, visions, hallucinations or disorganised or pressured speech and to believe that
chemical imbalances in the brain are somehow responsible for these phenomena is
such folly, even an indication of insanity and a significant delusion in
itself. In fact the changes in brain chemicals are a symptomatic result of
emotional repression over many years, often from conception onwards, and can be
corrected through gentle, careful, dedicated, aware, considerate, reliable,
patient, kind and quiet gender-appropriate care, counselling
and understanding and the active promotion of constructive expression of
feelings.
Patients in
crisis also need consistency, clarity, continuity and reliability, everything
that the public and private mental health systems today are not, and most would
respond positively to the genuine unselfish devotion to their true needs.
Instead the physical, emotional and spiritual health and well-being of most
patients are compromised enormously and they get dispirited, despondent,
disillusioned, frustrated and outraged at being lied to, put off, denied help,
given excuses of no substance, deprived of entitled care and support and
refused reasonable requests.
The overall
psychiatric approach also ignores a fundamental fact of human behaviour and a basic spiritual reality - men and women are
physically different, emotionally different and spiritually different - and
thank GOD this is so! Those people whoo believe
otherwise have never, ever really looked at themselves. When their various
fashionable, transitory, superficial and confusing psychological theories are
misused in treating already confused, gullible, vulnerable and defenceless patients, this academic foolishness is both
destructive and dangerous. To be specific, female staff cannot possibly know or
understand what it is like to be a man, how men feel and why they feel the ways
they do, and conversely male staff have little or no idea what female patients
feel and why.
Daily routine in
psychiatric units is mundane, monotonous, without variety, interest or
challenge, with occasional inappropriate childish distractions and activities
but with almost no encouragement to grow, to work on themselves.
Because so many staff hate fresh air and sunshine, the often excellent outdoor
areas are grossly underutilised despite this being
healthy, invigorating, refreshing and regenerating, a productive use of time. Staff constantly make excuses to avoid taking patients
outside, excuses that are simple lies. In fact they encourage everything that
is bad for patients (over-eating and drinking too much fluid, smoking, sitting,
watching TV and videos and reading, playing games) and actively discourage
everything beneficial and healing to the spirit!
There is a direct
and unequivocal correlation between all kinds of emotionally dysfunctional,
destructive, self-destructive and violent behaviour
in teenagers and young adults and the poor true standard of parenting, the
actual neglect, deprivation, abuse, violence and invalidation that they were
subject to as babies and young children. Parents, especially mothers with whom
children have most contact, who are changeable, 'scatty',
irrational, constantly critical and controlling, physically and emotionally
bullying, covertly disturbed and violent, who aggressively prevent the open and
truthful expression of their children’s feelings, who are competitive, jealous,
who are devious, deceitful, game playing, trouble making, moody, greedy and
hypocritical (especially when they say they love their children in words but in
action do the exact opposite) cause realistic, reasonable feelings of
persecution, mood swings, behaviour splitting,
paranoia, autism, hyperactivity and ADHD and bullying and violent behaviour responses in children. The only people who cannot
or will not see this fact are those who are naive, gullible, emotionally
retarded and easily fooled by superficial, wordy pretence, who have not faced
the truth about their own parents and childhoods and/or those who are guilty
and who refuse to look at, acknowledge and take responsibility for their own
personal and professional child abuse.
Worst of all in
the mental health systems is the total misuse and abuse of medication which has
become a real obsession to the virtual exclusion of all other forms of
treatment, a thinly disguised tool of emotional repression. Whilst it is
acceptable, in fact necessary, to use drugs to stop patients harming themselves
or others, it is regularly misused to keep patients quiet, agreeable,
compliant, even immobile and catatonic, for the selfish convenience of staff.
Patients are reduced to unfeeling, comatose, sedentary automatons lacking in
affect, like many of the staff!! Patients are also indulged with PRN medication
on demand which helps them continue to block out and avoid facing intense
emerging underlying feelings which should be encouraged to come up, be
expressed, dealt with constructively and be discharged. This is unhealthy,
inappropriate, even dangerous and violent, certainly counterproductive,
obstructive and pre-emptive of the natural processes of healing. Medication is
often used as a form of censorship, oppression, containment and intimidation to
stop patients expressing any of their feelings and to stop them standing up for
themselves and their rights and telling the truth to the staff. Drugs are also
misused as a form of vengeance, even torment, when staff
become malicious and vindictive towards anyone whom they arbitrarily
perceive in their incipient paranoia to be a potential threat to them, those
with more spirit of whom they are jealous and to get back at anyone who even
legitimately criticises them in any way. In all these
senses the health professionals are guilty of exactly the same kind of
emotional repression as that shown by patients' parents, behaviour
which gave rise to their 'mental health problems' problems in the first place.
It is only ever
appropriate for true healing to use medication to moderate and manage the most
intense and uncontrollable emergence of rage, pain and terror, the underlying
root cause of the patient's emotional/behavioural
dysfunctional condition (so-called 'mental illness'). Most staff however cannot
cope with, acknowledge nor constructively deal with their own intense feelings
- they are therefore unfit and unable to heelp and guide patients through the
process of emotional growth and healing. Consequently, like the patients' own
parents, they insanely and aggressively overreact to any expression of strong
feelings, even elation or sadness, with medication (or the threat of medication
and/or violence) even when the patient poses no realistic threat or danger to
anyone.
The most disease
ridden and unhealthy environments in the western world today are hospitals (and
doctors' surgeries) and doctors and nurses are by far the most physically,
emotionally, 'mentally' and spiritually diseased people. Newborn babies and
women in labour in particular should be kept as far
away from all sick people as possible! Patients (and one needs to be patient
whilst in the hands of a doctor or nurse) only get better in hospitals as a
desperate manoeuvre to escape the continuous noise,
the awful food, the lack of any real care, the inconsideration, the pretence
and feigned concern, the total invasion of personal privacy and space, the
savagery of the treatment and the enormous expense involved. There is
absolutely no excuse for this as there are one million times the resources
available, both physical and human, to superbly care for all the sick in this
world. What is so clearly lacking is the determination and courage to give and
share, to provide real leadership in health by example, to set responsible
limits concerning self-destructive behaviour and
habits and finally to ensure that the grossly overindulged, overpaid and out of
control medical and nursing professions both do what they are paid to do -
serve and heal gently, quietly, considerately, unselfishly, inexpensively and
without drugs or unnecessary operations, in our own homes and communities.
Medicine has
become an enormously expensive, complicated and confusing business with little
relevance to health and healing and there are so many people within the health
system who have significant vested interests (both financial and emotional) in
the continuation of this highly unsatisfactory and unethical situation. Just
like politicians, the judiciary, the legal profession, senior public servants
and other greedy, over-privileged and ambitious groups in society with
artificially inflated, undeserved social and economic positions, the medical
profession is essentially corrupt. It outrageously misuses its entrusted power
and influence and will not hesitate to spitefully slander, maliciously malign
and covertly conspire to discredit anyone who genuinely criticises
or accurately exposes its culpable misconduct and nefarious activities.
Michael & Mary Israel †
2) Pregnancy, Birth & the Care of Babies and
Young Children
Chapters Page
Number
Conception 1
Pregnancy 3
Birth 5
Breast Feeding 11
Crying Babies, 'Wind' and
'Colic' 14
Breast Milk Substitutes 16
Weaning 18
General Care 19
Cot Death' or Sudden Infant
Death Syndrome 26
Premature Babies 27
Conception
Apart from the obvious
benefit of having babies for the survival of the human race, couples through
learning to unselfishly care for their children and really put their needs
first are able to confront and resolve key issues from their own childhoods.
Children are so sensitive, vulnerable, defenceless
and totally dependent and this relationship of necessity confronts parents with
the truth of how they were themselves (mis)treated
and (un)cared for as babies and young children.
Children provide parents with a mirror, especially sons for fathers and
daughters for mothers, and this brings to the surface all the unexpressed,
repressed fear, anger and pain that they feel towards and about their own
parents, grandparents, other relations, health professionals and child care
workers from this time. Those parents who take
advantage of this GOD-given opportunity to grow into emotionally mature adults,
will through this process learn about real love, experience true joy and
genuine inner fulfilment and come to understand
something worthwhile about the meaning of life itself.
Tragically however, the vast
majority of fathers and mothers today deliberately choose to continue to deny
and repress how they feel, to discharge their emerging feelings even more
indirectly, selfishly, violently and destructively, become even more self-centred and emotionally stunted and crippled and impose
upon their children a worse version of their own early childhoods, from
conception onwards. Whilst deceitfully claiming to love them in words they fail
to change any important aspect of their lives to accommodate their children's
real needs. For those few who really believe in GOD (or Love), it is surprising
that HE blesses so many people today with children considering what these
lovely little people will be forced to endure. However, everyone clearly needs
to be given a realistic chance to grow up and unselfish love is the only path
to true emotional freedom, genuine wisdom and any real spiritual awareness -
there is no other way.
Many couples decide to have
children in the first place for fundamentally inappropriate and dishonest
reasons and not out of any heart-felt desire to care for and learn from another
human being. Idle and under-utilised females,
effectively abandoned by their husbands in particular insist on having children
to try (unsuccessfully) to fill the emptiness of their own lives and loveless
relationships and to distract them from their own fears and confusion. Husbands
agree to their demands as an "easy" way to keep their wives quiet and
to avoid giving them the support and time they fairly need - this is the
ultimate in irresponsible indulgence, immoral abdication and criminal
negligence. Predictably both parents soon realise
what a mistake it has been to believe that a baby could solve all their own
personal problems and the deficiencies in their relationship - in fact a baby
only highlights all the inadequacies that already exist.
Most so-called marriages
today are emotionally convenient and superficial liaisons based entirely on
mutual mistrust, dishonesty, irresponsibility, pretence and greed in which both
sides use one another to avoid growing up and to maintain pointless delusions
about one another and about life in general. There is no real love in these
fundamentally flawed and mismatched arrangements and it is therefore no
surprise that increasing numbers of couples are having problems with conceiving
a baby. However few people have the wisdom, courage and integrity to look at
why this happens and these difficulties are invariably treated as physiological
or biological or due to some chemical or genetic imbalance or deficiency.
The misled and deluded
medical profession is obsessively preoccupied as usual with these superficial
indicative symptoms while the emotional and spiritual underlying causes are
totally ignored. Contrary to this foolish and simplistic misconception, it is
important to recognise that problems with conceiving
always indicate that something is seriously wrong with the relationship itself
and with the maturity and emotional health of the prospective parents. In those
cases where a couple do have the potential to eventually develop a proper
marriage suitable for raising children, either or both may be simply unfit and
unready as yet for parenthood - the repressed backlog of unfaced
feelings about their own childhoods has adversely affected their physical
ability to contribute appropriately to the conception of a baby. For example,
the low sperm count that males are increasingly being afflicted with is simply
a physical manifestation of the common emotional emasculation or 'castration'
they are subject to from the females around them and have been since early
childhood. If they learn to productively and non-violently discharge their
lethal burden of suppressed rage appropriately, their sperm count will soon
return to normal. Similar mutated alterations to genetic structure passed on
from parents, grandparents and previous generations are also caused by intense,
unresolved emotional states and are also able to be resolved or cured in this
way.
Much more commonly couples
are basically unsuited to one another and their entire relationship is
completely without any possibility or hope, a situation which would cause
enormous long term distress and confusion to any child conceived placing an
intolerable burden upon them from the outset. Also having a child in these
circumstances would make it much more difficult and complicated to sort out and
responsibly end their relationship and so then be able to find the person that
was right for each of them. Even if these unsuited couples choose to foster or
adopt children instead, the same situation applies and this is especially true
with all homosexual and lesbian 'couples'. This is not to say of course that
those relationships which are blessed with children are necessarily good or
potentially good marriages - nothing could be further from the truth.
Predictably the ignorant,
unprincipled medical profession outrageously indulges those who are having
difficulties with conception, meddling so dangerously in their lives and
misusing and taking advantage of yet another opportunity to experiment on human
beings. They employ a number of methods which though totally inappropriate,
bizarre and even macabre and sick, are nevertheless commonly used and widely
accepted today without serious question or proper debate - these include
fertility drugs, artificial insemination, 'in vitro' fertilisation
and surrogacy. So many doctors are totally shut-off and emotionally hardened
intellectual robots, who view human beings as biochemical machines with no real
appreciation of the spirit or for how people feel - this is obvious in their
entire approach to conception, pregnancy, birth and the care of babies. Typical
of the inept and ignorant intrusions of these presumptuous upstarts, they
readily undertake artificially inducing pregnancy with absolutely no concern
for the future consequences or welfare of the baby and without proper
understanding of the issues involved - if there is no love in a baby's actual
conception, they are clearly off to the worst possible start in life
Health professionals never take responsibility
for the inevitable subsequent problems and without conscience "play
GOD", interfering in and making judgments about issues of life and death
so clearly well beyond their experience, training, awareness, strength of
spirit, innate ability and understanding. In the process these immoral
degenerates and insane scientists cause incredible confusion to helpless and
vulnerable babies by completely denying (and destroying) the primary spiritual
and emotional bond that exists between all fathers and mothers and their own
natural children, most especially between fathers and sons and mothers and
daughters. As with all their actions, doctors proudly boast to have
"miraculously" cured a problem when what they have really done is to
cover up a short term symptom, ignore its significance and postpone and create
much more serious, distressing, expensive and difficult to solve complications
in the longer term. Premature babies and multiple births of undersized infants
requiring the horrific deprivation, neglect and abuse of the humidicrib environment are only one example of their
criminal culpability.
Pregnancy
It needs to be first
stressed that human beings are both body and spirit,
they begin life at conception, not at birth and are affected emotionally and
physically by their environment from this time. Babies are extremely sensitive
when they are very young and it is in the earliest stages of pregnancy that the
mother needs to be most responsible with her physical and emotional well being.
If a couple are trying to conceive or if there is any chance that they may
conceive, no matter how remote, they should both fully appreciate the
implications and possible effects of all their actions and behaviour
on a tiny, helpless and completely vulnerable human being. Many women today do
not realise they are pregnant for weeks, even months
after conception and this consequently places an important responsibility on
all couples "sleeping together".
The mother is effectively the baby's home and
she needs to care for herself in the following simple ways
- by eating and
drinking a sensible, balanced diet
- by exercising
gently through walking, swimming and in the natural process of an active (but
not rushed or rough) life
- by living
somewhere clean, tidy, uncluttered, peaceful and pleasant smelling with daily
access to surrounding natural beauty and peace
- by getting plenty
of fresh air and sunshine each and every day, certainly outside well away from
air conditioning.
The most important
responsibility for a mother however is to recognise
that the extraordinary closeness of having another human being actually growing
inside her will bring to the surface all the unresolved and unacknowledged
feelings repressed during the period from her own conception to birth and into
early childhood. These feelings will of necessity be very, very intense at
times, especially with the first pregnancy and need to be dealt with openly and
responsibly or they will be directly and indirectly focused against her defenceless unborn child who shares her physical and
emotional space. The process of growing by constructively expressing feelings
is a full time occupation in itself and takes a twenty-four hour a day, seven
day a week commitment by any expecting mother who really loves her unborn child
- making money during this time ("workking" is not an appropriate
description) is irresponsible, cruel, greedy and cowardly escapism, without
exception.
Couples should take every
opportunity during pregnancy to really consolidate their relationship ready for
the intensely emotional and often difficult time after the birth. If they do
this, they will soon realise the essential and
important differences between men and women, between fathers and mothers and
how their individual contributions complement each other without any of the
role-playing nonsense and artificial stereotyping so common today. By
expressing her anger, pain and fear openly and constructively a pregnant mother
will learn naturally about her innate essence buried underneath years of
dishonest and unhealthy conditioning. By learning to behave consistent with
this essence in keeping with her real needs she will only then be able to
provide the sort of soft, gentle, peaceful, quiet, relaxed, unhurried, open,
vulnerable and emotionally healthy home for her unborn baby, something all
babies need.
At the same time her
husband, in spending a great deal of time with his pregnant wife each and every
day, will learn to grow into the man his family needs him to be - patient,
gentle, careful and quiet with his wife but also strong and firm without
roughness, hardness or coarseness. Only in this way can he give his wife the
real support and direction she needs as well as providing his family proper
protection in what is a noisy, hostile and certainly dangerous world. In order
to preserve the integrity and security of his home, a man needs to learn to
express his indignation verbally and non-violently (loudly if necessary) at any
unwarranted intrusions and to wisely choose an appropriate place to live as
peaceful and as healthy as possible, well away from modern cities and all
hospitals. By being open and honest with his own
feelings and sharing these with his wife, their relationship will improve
rapidly as they learn to trust one another and learn what they need to give to
and receive from one another, essential preparation for being proper parents. A
solid and growing relationship based on real love, trust and respect between
husband and wife is by far the most important of all babies' needs!
All men who effectively abandon their wives
during pregnancy using "work" as an excuse to escape forty hours or
more a week, who do not set them limits nor give them direction and protection
are abject failures as husbands, fathers and human beings - there are no valid
excuses nor exceptions to this. Parents who love their children will change any
aspect of their lives to improve their care and give them what they need -
money is the last and least important consideration. In particular husbands
need to use their stronger spirits to set sensible and loving limits for their
wives who may reasonably try to avoid facing some of their deeper pain and
fear. In fact pregnant women on their own are simply not able or willing to care
for themselves and for their unborn children and they commonly try to escape
the reality of how they feel by:-
• eating too much, drinking too much fluid,
smoking, taking prescription and other drugs
• being noisy, frantic, hysterical, rushed
and impatient
• being constantly busy and filling life with
and trying to block out reality with radio, television, magazines, books and
other artificial, external distractions
• engaging in strenuous, excessively
energetic, prolonged, fast or rough activities, exercise or sports like
aerobics and jogging
• staying indoors, sitting or standing for
extended periods, doing as little actively as possible
• talking incessantly about how they feel
without ever really feeling, expressing and dealing with these feelings
Pregnant women who behave
like this, who drink more than a very little tea, herbal tea or coffee and any
alcohol at all, who don't eat a generous and balanced diet including iron and
calcium rich foods, who are over-weight or too thin, who "work", who
don't get plenty of gentle, natural exercise by walking and swimming, who don't
spend several hours every day with their husbands discussing and dealing openly
with how they really feel and who are not relaxed and peaceful during
pregnancy, are mistreating, depriving and neglecting their unborn baby and
obstructing them from proper growth and development. They do this because they
naturally and sensibly distrust their husbands, their doctors and even
themselves and if allowed they will take the "easy" way out for
themselves, the hard way for the baby!
All this behaviour however is literally cowardly, cruel and sadistic
because it invariably inflicts an enormous amount of distress on an extremely
sensitive, vulnerable and completely defenceless,
tiny human being who has no escape. Pregnant women deliberately choose to do
this - no one is forcing them - and their husbands also choose to stand by
allowing and encouraging it with only ever the most ineffectual or indirect
expressions of concern.
Pregnant women's
unexpressed feelings give rise to a number of serious, unpleasant consequences,
all fully avoidable - morning sickness, headaches, high blood pressure,
headaches, fluid retention and toxaemia. Also,
because the unborn baby shares their mother's nervous system and emotional
space, the repressed feelings and unloving and destructive subsequent behaviour by her (and by anyone who distresses her) always
adversely effects the baby in some tangible way.
Babies show their distress before they are born by failing to grow properly, by
twisting and turning inappropriately in the womb (often getting the cord
twisted around their neck in the process), by being born prematurely or too
late or in extreme cases, by developing improperly or by dying and being
miscarried. Prematurity and all deformities, handicaps and disabilities in new
born babies are the sole result of an inappropriate, unloving and harmful
physical and emotional environment in the womb during pregnancy and during labour and it is time both parents and doctors took full
responsibility for the results of their actions and inaction.
In contrast, a proper
preparation and responsible, joint commitment by both father and mother will be
rewarded by a relationship for both that improves and enriches throughout a
pregnancy free from all problems, difficulties and any needed medical
interference and intrusion, the only way that a baby can be given real love in
action from conception to birth. The validation of this will be obvious - no
morning sickness, indigestion, constipation, haemorrhoids,
varicose veins, headaches, backaches, dizziness, sleeplessness, cramps,
itching, toxaemia, high blood pressure, fluid
retention, bladder difficulties, discharge, anaemia,
miscarriages or premature births. Finally their baby will be born spontaneously
at full term, completely healthy and at home, the only appropriate, sensible,
safe and caring environment.
Doctors and nurses, aided
and abetted by irresponsible, misinformed and ill-advised parents in fact cause
all of the problems that are misused to frighten people into believing that the
artificial environment of a hospital birth is the safest. Home birth is the
only safe, caring, private, sensible, responsible and
"cost-effective" choice in every single respect. Pregnancy and birth
are not illnesses but are supposed to be a natural part of life managed
competently and without fuss or fear within the extended family. Instead it has
become an enormously complicated, expensive and contrived performance only
because parents (and especially fathers) have totally abdicated their
responsibilities as adults, spouses and parents and so allowed the medical
profession to take over and intrude upon what is essentially a personal, modest
and private family experience.
Birth
Providing both parents have
prepared themselves diligently in all physical and emotional respects they can
anticipate a trouble free, natural birth at home as it is supposed to be. The
environment in which to bring a tiny and extremely sensitive person into the
world must be one which sensibly provides the easiest, gentlest and most
natural transition from the womb (a warm, soft, dark, peaceful, fully enclosed
space) into the world A newly born baby obviously needs quiet, dimly lit, warm,
peaceful, clean, private, comfortable and pleasant smelling surroundings and
they need to be brought into the world patiently and gently without any sudden,
rough or rushed movements or noise. In stark contrast to the real, actual
deprivation, abuse and neglect they receive in all hospitals (and especially
large, city ones), newborn babies need to be gradually introduced or exposed to
all new experiences and stimuli. They need to be slowly "weaned" from
the womb into the world - from darkness to sunlight, from body temperature only
to increasingly greater extremes of hot and cold, from still air to breeze,
from completely surrounded, all-over protection to more direct and localised contact, from an enclosed place to open spaces,
from inside mother only to the outside around other people, from being
constantly held within to being on their own and not held. In every case they
need to be patiently allowed plenty of time to adjust at a rate which is
comfortable for them and not be expected to cope with and fit in with the
selfish and thoughtless demands of the adults present.
In contacts with all other
people it is most important not to allow anyone to be noisy, rough or to
jiggle, poke or prod babies - they hate this and at
best it only makes them frantic. Except for the father, those
present at the actual labour and birth should only
ever be women from the immediate family or if this is impossible or
inappropriate, one or two close women friends. All present need to be
healthy, quiet, peaceful, careful, gentle and considerate of everyone's space
in this order of priority - first the newborn baby, then the mother, the
father, the rest of the family and finally anyone else present - any midwives
assisting should be mature women with extensive prior experience and
understanding of responsible home birth.
A proper midwife is a
clean, tidy, active, patient, unobtrusive, aware, helpful and practical married
woman with a strong, sound marriage and with several breast-fed children of her
own who were born at home without complications or needing anaesthetics
or stitches - this is the sort of real experience necessary to support and
assist other pregnant women through the whole of pregnancy, labour
and the first few weeks of their baby's lives. Single females (and worse, any
males) outside the family who interfere in and intrude upon the privacy and
intimacy of birth do so for a whole range of twisted, self-centred
and even depraved and sexually perverted motives, none of which have anything
to do with helping the baby or mother. Certainly no male should ever be present
during labour and birth except the father - modesty
is essential particularly in the first stage of labour
to allow the mother to be comfortable, feel safe and secure, to relax and so be
able to allow her cervix to dilate easily. Having males and intrusive
"busy", "efficient" (guilty & Ignorant) females around
will only encourage the woman in labour to tighten up
and fight the natural, involuntary muscular contractions. So will any internal
examinations whatsoever during labour yet these are
used as a matter of course by unaware doctors, nurses and midwives who have
completely lost all intuitive insight and instinctive understanding about the
progress of labour and have unsuccessfully tried to
compensate for this crucial deficiency with a quite bizarre obsession and
foolish preoccupation with repeatedly examining and measuring the dilation of
the cervix.
It is never right or
necessary for anyone (and especially any male or female outside the immediate
family) to internally examine a woman at the time when she is at her most
vulnerable and sensitive, during labour. In typical
hospital situations and even with many home births, women in labour are unnecessarily forced to lie on their backs
effectively exposing their most private, personal and sensitive areas up in the
air to be inspected, prodded and poked by interfering, depraved, unprofessional
deviates. Generations of female nurses have allowed and encouraged male doctors
to impose this most inappropriate, inconvenient, unnatural, uncomfortable,
embarrassing and humiliating presentation on their patients and have therefore
themselves become knowing accessories to what is effectively a form of unlawful
sexual connection, molestation and abuse. All these unnecessary, invasions of space
could not be more effective in obstructing, disrupting and prolonging the first
stage of labour, so causing the mother more distress
and pain, tiring her out and endangering both her and the baby. Doctors then
foolishly respond by giving epidural injections or other pain killers which
only aggravate the situation so requiring further fully avoidable brutal
interventions such as forceps deliveries and caesarean births. This criminally
intrusive behaviour epitomises
the inconceivable insanity, stupidity, callousness and counterproductive
brutality of the whole modern medical and nursing philosophy.
In fact the conditions
normally encountered in maternity hospitals and the behaviour
and actions of staff are themselves directly responsible for the very problems
during labour which they so arrogantly proclaim to
remedy - these are also deceitfully misused by them to convince parents that
hospital births are the safest, the exact opposite of the truth. Hospitals are
so obviously the worst possible environments in which to put women at their
most vulnerable - just before, during or just after giving birth - and new born
babies and women in labour in particular should be
kept as far away from all sick people as possible.
Problems in labour are always due to a lack of proper preparation
before and during pregnancy as well as the fear, anger and pain which are a
reasonable response to the inconsideration and intrusion of the hospital staff,
to the inappropriate nature of this environment and to the emotional (and often
physical) absence of a concerned, involved and protective man. Any real man,
husband and father, with a small amount of responsible preparation and
understanding and using the intuition and empathy he has gained from spending
so much time with his wife during pregnancy, could do a better job of
delivering his own children on his own than any obstetrician or hospital
trained midwife alive today providing he began his preparation and gave his
support, encouragement and protection to his wife (and unborn child) from
conception. This is not the best way to have a birth at home but is infinitely
more preferable than having a birth in any hospital anywhere in the world or at
home with an unsuitable midwife. A husband and wife who have spent the
necessary time together throughout the pregnancy will intuitively know what is
right to do during the birth and can reasonably and confidently expect a
spontaneous, natural and easy birth without problems. Labour
will not need to be induced using tablets, injections or by rupturing the
membranes nor will there ever be any need for internal examinations, shaving,
enemas, anaesthetics, forceps deliveries, caesarean
sections, episiotomies or stitches nor will they have difficulties with a
prolonged or excessively painful labour, a twisted
umbilical cord, an awkward presentation, "placenta praevias",
retained placentas, excessive bleeding or still births. A reasonable time for a
first labour should be 12-16 hours, around 8 hours
for the second and as little as 2-4 hours for all subsequent ones.
Both fathers and mothers
may be concerned beforehand about the likely presence of so much blood, very
reasonable if they have had no prior experience and it is important to talk
about this beforehand because in doing so these feelings will be out in the
open and so much easier to deal with. The reality is that the birth itself will
be so extraordinary and emotionally intense that the comparatively small amount
of blood will not be noticed at the time.
Apart from the essential
physical and emotional preparation needed during pregnancy by both prospective
parents, it is important to get a few things ready for the birth itself. It is
a good idea to have two or three soft cotton or flannelette sheets for the
woman in labour to lie on as well as several towels,
all washed in warm water with pure soap and hung out in the sun and wind to dry
and air. These can then be folded, wrapped up carefully in clean brown paper or
material and put away ready for the birth. Old sheets are fine providing they
are clean and not torn because these can be simply thrown away afterwards - if
there is a lot of blood it can be very time consuming to wash out especially
when the parents have enough to do afterwards of greater importance. It is a
good idea to also have an appropriate piece of water proofing material
underneath the sheets to protect the mattress, a hot water bottle, some clean,
soft, spun lambs wool or similar to tie the umbilical cord, a pair of clean,
sharp scissors to cut the cord and a medium sized bowl to catch and hold the
placenta. Everything needs to be washed and cleaned although there is no need
for sterilising providing the home itself is clean,
tidy and aired - there is such a performance made about cleanliness in
hospitals only because many of the staff have appallingly negligent standards
of personal hygiene themselves and hospitals are in fact breeding grounds for
the most virulent strains of bacteria and disease.
The experience of labour is very scary for a woman because she has no
voluntary control over what is happening. Consequently she needs her husband to
be present and involved both physically and emotionally and to be really in
charge of the whole situation, the only appropriate person to do this. Early in
labour they should lie down together quietly beside
one another and it will help his wife to relax if he holds her gently but
firmly. The "waters" may break before labour
begins (even up to 24 hours before) or may not break until labour
has actually begun - it is a good idea to have the prepared sheets and
waterproof put on the bed once labour begins and the
towels and bowl handy. When the woman feels like going to the toilet, her
husband should help her and he can also organise a
hot water bottle if/when her lower back aches late in the first stage of labour. It is not responsible for a woman in labour to walk around even though she may "feel"
this is right - in fact this behaviour is only a
restless response to the fear that labour has brought
up and walking around only disrupts the relaxation necessary for a successful
first stage - it may even physically harm the baby.
It is vitally important
during the last phase of the first stage of labour,
the most painful time for the woman ,when the cervix
is nearly fully dilated, that her husband is close and gives his full support.
His wife may be tempted to begin pushing prematurely because of the pain and
she will need all his encouragement then to avoid this - it helps to have her
look him straight in the eyes and both really concentrate on breathing slowly
and deeply. If the parents are on their own without a midwife then the father
himself will need to do the actual delivery, something any man should be able
and willing to do. Rushing to hospital during labour
is irresponsible insanity, the worst possible thing to do for everyone,
especially the mother and baby. All those involved in these absolutely
ridiculous and ludicrous scenarios including parents, health professionals and
emergency services volunteers are endangering life, prolonging labour, certainly distressing the baby and mother and have
no reason to be so smugly complacent and self-satisfied with their unnecessary,
reckless and usually enormously expensive intrusions.
The best way to give birth
is for the mother to squat during pushing, the second stage of labour, the best physical position to encourage the baby to
come out. Her husband can sit behind her and support her leaning backwards
while the midwife prepares herself to catch the baby as it is born onto the clean,
soft, fresh towels placed underneath, somewhere to rest the baby briefly after
birth. Females who say they feel most comfortable in other more awkward
positions should be discouraged as these inevitably make the actual birth more
difficult in all respects - typically the traditional hospital birthing
position suits no-one but the selfish convenience of the staff, the last and
least important consideration. Despite current popular trends, especially in
the "alternative culture", there is absolutely no justification nor
need for giving birth into water - this bizarre embellishment, only ever
considered or undertaken by those who have not come to terms with their own
births, detracts from the natural enjoyment of ordinary birth, making it
unnecessarily complicated with no real improvement or advantage for the baby.
Giving an epidural injection or any anaesthetic
during labour is always unnecessary, often done in
response to the hospital staff's own selfish unwillingness to deal
constructively with someone in pain. This blocks out or severely impairs any
feeling and spoils for the mother the wonderful joy of the actual moment of
birth.
As the baby's head begins
to crown (the top first appears) the husband or midwife should ask the woman to
be careful and control her pushing so as not to expel the baby too quickly which can cause tearing. There is no frantic hurry to clear
their mouth or nose and this can be done gently and carefully with a tissue or
soft clean cloth as soon as the baby's head is born. The baby's head needs to
be gently supported and as the baby's shoulders are born he or she will turn
naturally. Do not be concerned if the baby is a purplish-blue colour as they soon become pink after the birth when they
start breathing. Nothing needs to be rushed or hurried and even minor
difficulties such as a cord twisted around the baby's neck can be freed gently
and carefully without any panic - doctors and nurses only ever rush during the
second stage of labour in response to their own unfaced fears about their own awful births, especially
because they were not held afterwards by their fathers. There is no immediate
need to cut the umbilical cord and the newly born baby can next be wrapped in
the clean, soft towels and placed gently on the mother's chest - cutting the
chord prematurely can reduce the blood volume available to the newborn by up to
30% at the very time they most need all the iron they can get. When the cord
stops pulsing (and only then), it needs to be tied firmly with the lambs wool
right where the umbilical cord joins the baby - this point is really easy to
see as there is an obvious place where the cord ends and the baby begins. The
cord should also be tied about 5 cms further away
towards the mother's end and it can then be cut carefully between these two
ties with a pair of clean, sharp scissors. The baby is still receiving oxygen
from their mother right up until the time the umbilical cord stops pulsating.
Newborn babies most
importantly need gentle handling and peaceful, quiet, dimly lit and pleasant
smelling surroundings - their senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch
are all "brand new" and very, very sensitive. In particular all those
who smoke, who have recently drunk alcohol or eaten anything strong smelling or
who have bad breath should be kept well away from babies as should anyone who
is not clean or is unhealthy, rough, noisy, frantic and intrusive. Also no
loving, aware and responsible parents would allow any animals or other pets
inside their homes, under any circumstances, ever - it is basically unclean,
unhygienic, inappropriate and uncivilised. Newborn
babies also need to be held almost continuously by one or other of the parents
during the first 24 hours or so after birth, the amount of holding needed will
depend on how difficult the pregnancy was and how protracted and difficult was
the birth. Holding the newborn baby makes them feel safe, secure and able to
express the understandable distress all human beings feel about being born. The
vast majority of people today never even begin to come to terms with their own
birth experience because their parents and their place of birth destroyed any
possible trust and only added to the fear they felt then and feel still. Any
physical separation immediately following birth except when the baby is fast
asleep will without any doubt cause a great deal of trauma to a tiny, extremely
sensitive little person who has been literally surrounded by his mother for 9
months and (hopefully) exposed to no external intrusions. When newborn babies
are put down to sleep it is important to make them feel safe by surrounding
them with pillows or rolled-up blankets on all sides. A new born baby has just
gone through the most terrifying experience of life, a natural growing
transition and dislocation which prepares them for life outside.
Babies delivered by
caesarean section are denied this essential preparation and the resultant
emotional handicap is very difficult to resolve subsequently. Delivering babies
by caesarean section for convenience, in case of "something going
wrong" or to indulge females (and males) who wish to avoid the birth
experience and the inevitable implications of an irresponsible pregnancy can
only be accurately described as criminal immorality causing grievous bodily and
emotional harm and would be treated as such by any culture that really cared
for children. Many doctors do this because they really enjoy spoiling the
natural enjoyment and fulfilment of childbirth for
women and interfering unnecessarily in this potentially wonderful and natural
experience. They derive twisted pleasure from their entirely contrived and
artificial positions of power and control over female patients towards whom
they relate like little boys to their mothers. In contrast, natural child birth
is vital for all responsible and involved parents because they will grow
immensely as individuals and as a couple through this shared experience and
this is how genuine bonding forms - not the fantasised
and contrived nonsense written about by the so-called experts today.
In fact the medical and
nursing professions have done their level best to destroy natural bonding by
both father and mother to their newborn baby - putting newborn babies in
nurseries for whatever reason was and is simply just cruel, brutal and sadistic
child abuse which gives a good insight into the real motives of doctors and
nurses and those parents who accept this mistreatment of their own children.
There is no hurry to feed a baby just after birth because they have been
continuously fed up until the time the umbilical cord stops carrying blood,
just after the birth is complete. Ideally the baby can be very carefully bathed
as soon as everyone has had some time to relax, calm down and to take this most
amazing experience into their hearts.
If there is any
unreasonable delay in the third stage of labour (the
passing of the placenta) the baby can be breast fed to help with this as breast
feeding naturally induces the release of the hormones which stimulate
contractions of the uterus - this can itself be quite painful to begin with but
it is very important to persevere. Again it is not right to rush the delivery
of the placenta and there is no need to forcibly remove it by pulling hard on
the cord, a common practice in hospitals - this causes excessive bleeding for
weeks afterwards. The placenta can be induced to come away by pulling gently on
the cord only if there is any unreasonable delay, say more than 30 minutes or
so or the mother can have a shower which helps her relax. The placenta will
usually come away complete and it can be placed in a covered bowl. It can be
stored in the refrigerator until the next day or so and then buried in the
garden - a most appropriate and really nice thing to do is to plant a special
tree over the top of it to mark the birth, a most important and notable event
in everyone's life. There should be little bleeding afterwards but if there is
any tearing during the birth it is important to allow it to heal without
stitching. This will be uncomfortable for several weeks but if allowed to heal
naturally in this way it will be much stronger and less prone to tear in future
labours. Bathing in sea water or a bowl of salt water
will help both the soreness and the healing process as will careful, limited
exposure to direct sunlight in private.
When the baby is born he or
she will be covered with a layer of vermix, a white
waxy protective substance which has a really lovely smell. When the newborn
baby is bathed do not wash this off as it helps to protect the baby's skin.
After bathing the baby needs to be dressed gently, carefully and slowly in a small gauze or flannelette nappy (nothing bulky at this
age), a cotton singlet and either a nightie, T-shirt
or skivvy depending on the weather. They need to be wrapped in a clean soft
swaddling cloth but don't need anything on their head or feet unless the house
is cold (which it shouldn't be). Do not be concerned with the colour and consistency of newborn's first bowel motion as
this is always very dark and sticky.
Usually after the
excitement has died down, the whole family will need to have some sleep, the
baby being held on their father's chest - the mother may appreciate a little
space of her own to recuperate. After resting everyone will then probably feel
like something to eat and the mother can lie down to give their baby their
first substantial breast feed - lying down helps slow down the milk flow as her
breasts will be fairly full at this time. The mothers' first meals after the
birth need to include generous portions of iron-containing foods to make up for
blood loss along with the necessary vitamin C sources such as juice to properly
digest this iron. She will also probably appreciate warm sweet drinks of
something like peppermint tea (with milk and honey) but nothing strong, highly flavoured or containing caffeine or alcohol.
Ideally both parents will
need some support in the first few weeks of their baby's life especially if
they already have other children. This is the responsibility of both their
extended families, a time of sharing when grandparents, brothers, sisters,
uncles and aunts are actively involved and readily accessible to help. If
babies’ needs were really considered and responded to in our cultures, families
would reassess and change these basic aspects of their lives. A responsible
husband will not even consider going to work for at least a week or two after
the birth of his child - for several weeks afterwards he must at least be close
by to give adequate support. Birth at home is a natural and wonderful
experience in the only environment which allows both parents to feel relaxed
and secure themselves and in charge of their situation without unwanted
intrusions or disruptions from strangers. In the process both parents will
learn an enormous amount about themselves and their other children will also
gain the sort of natural experience necessary for them to feel involved and
later competent to have their own children at home. In this way our integrity,
knowledge, skills and proper commitment as parents is maintained, generation by
generation.
Any parent who has endured
a typical pregnancy and hospital birth when they were young will be very angry
after being involved in a responsible home birth because they will see the
stark contrast and understand how easy and simple it can and should be. Both
will feel cheated, deceived and misled by the medical profession and will be
especially disgusted at their own parents who themselves clearly chose to take
the "easy way out". Every woman feels this very reasonable response
to the callous indifference, brutal and barbaric inconsideration and dishonest
pretence of a typical hospital birth, whether she acknowledges this to herself
or not, and these feelings will undoubtedly considerably aggravate any post
natal depression experienced. Post natal depression is one increasingly common
and compelling indication that something is very, very wrong with the present
and past, widely accepted approach to pregnancy and birth, especially with the
fundamentally flawed assumptions and beliefs and behaviour
of both health professionals and parents alike during this crucial period..
Post natal depression now
affects over 50% of new mothers even if few admit to it and virtually all would
experience it to some degree if they were not able to so easily run away from
these feelings by avoiding aspects of necessary baby care such as proper breast
feeding. Depression of any kind is just unexpressed anger and pain repressed
due to fear which then surfaces indirectly in feelings of despondency,
hopelessness, desperation and rage. Everything that mothers (and fathers) feel
like doing to babies is exactly what was actually done to them by their own
parents when they were young - shouting and screaming at them, hitting them,
pulling their hair, smothering, throttling, shaking and throwing them about.
The problem is not just common or widespread, it is general - however because
few people admit to these feelings, there is no proper
discussion of why it happens and what to do about it nor any possible
relief for the guilt people feel. It obviously seriously affects most health
professionals as well and so much of their anger and pain is clearly expressed
indirectly in behaviour that is essentially violent,
focused as usual at the most sensitive, vulnerable and defenceless.
They disguise this so well with implausible excuses and explanations,
platitudinous self-justifications and rationalisations
and deceitful, well practised pretence that their
actions are treated as acceptable, even normal and unavoidable.
What all mothers with PND
need is 24 hour a day, 7 days a week support, direction, care and sensitive
supervision by their husbands, mothers and other relations for weeks, even
months after the birth and especially the opportunity to appropriately,
constructively and safely discharge their intense feelings. In particular they
need a lot of help with their sons - boys have more spirit than their mothers
and increasingly need their fathers every day, more so than their mothers from
about 2 years of age. Given genuine help in this way, mothers will soon realise for themselves the source of their emotional
turmoil, feelings that are all reasonable, understandable and justifiable, and
so be able to manage them themselves. Those overwhelmed by feelings of being
expected to 'give, give, give' will see that this is a natural and anticipated
response to being put in the untenable and totally unreasonable position of
being left alone and expected to cope with no real help - these feelings are
also based upon their repressed anger at never being unselfishly cared for
themselves as babies. Husband's and father's react in
similar ways and would feel equally affected if they were not able to abandon
their families so soon after birth. and effectively escape back to work If they
choose to give proper support to their wife and child and are in turn helped by
their own father and mother, they will also soon learn that their seemingly
irrational anger is well founded rage in response to how useless, incompetent and
abdicated their own fathers and mothers were in accepting and going along
without question with the usual approach to pregnancy and to a hospital birth.
Both parents need to understand that they cannot feel the normal and natural
real joy from the birth unless all these other "less pleasant and
"inconvenient" feelings are also dealt with and it is a fantasy to
believe otherwise.
Typical of the profession's
asinine stupidity and general lack of any true personal awareness, psychiatry
suffers from the dangerous delusion that PND is an illness and views it as
deviant behaviour or an aberrant response to a
chemical or biochemical disturbance, imbalance or abnormality. It is therefore
treated by them totally inappropriately with antidepressant drugs - although
these may help moderate the feelings, usually they are prescribed in such high
dosages as to completely block them out and repress them even further. They
also have the most unpleasant side effects. Worse, counselling
is encouraged which invariably is undertaken by other females who have not
faced exactly the same emotional issues in their own lives and who therefore
can at best achieve only minimal and superficial short term apparent benefit.
Breast Feeding
Breast feeding is the only
natural, responsible, caring way to feed newborn babies ensuring they are
properly nourished physically, emotionally and spiritually as well as teaching
them to eat and to drink sensibly, appropriately, peacefully, slowly and
enjoyably. Breast feeding is not an art nor a skill
and mothers should not be applauded for breast feeding but rather severely
reprimanded and treated with disapproval and contempt if they don't. Females
who choose not to breast feed are actually resisting, fighting against and
denying their powerful, natural maternal instincts - they know what is right to
do as mothers, what their babies so desperately need of them yet they choose to
not do it just to suit their own selfish, emotional convenience and cowardly
evasion. They do this principally in order to avoid facing and going through
intense feelings of their own related to not being breast fed properly or at
all when they were babies themselves and their own equally lazy, irresponsible
and self-centred mothers' culpability in this is
obvious.
Bottle feeding mothers are
effectively hardening their hearts to, distancing and rejecting their babies
whose growth and development is always severely compromised by this deliberate,
callous act of neglect, deprivation and abuse of a tiny, defenceless
human being. No matter what reasons or excuses are fabricated to justify and rationalise their disgraceful, minimal pretence of being a
woman, wife and mother, in a fair and just society they would be held
accountable along with their equally complicit husbands and both severely
punished if they didn’t immediately start to properly care for their
unfortunate baby. Bottle feeding mothers cannot nor ever will properly bond to
their babies nor be able to really nurture them despite their wordy pretence to
the contrary and all bottle fed babies are seriously disadvantaged and disabled
both physically and emotionally, an experience that most will never recover
from. All their lives they will suffer a plethora of difficulties with eating
and drinking habits, problems with their weight and general health and a
greatly reduced quality and enjoyment of life as a consequence. Many females
today behave as though they are doing something "wonderful" or
"special" in breast feeding their babies and far too much emphasis is
placed upon and fuss made about the mother in publications and far too little
about the baby, the prime consideration.
A mother who is responsible
with her diet and her emotional needs will steadily build up to producing over
a litre of excellent quality breast milk each day and
nothing can equal the nourishment, convenience and the emotional satisfaction
of breast feeding for both mother and baby. Breast milk is the only milk
to give new born and young babies and is all they require for the first 4-6
months of life, perfectly matching all their needs. No further supplementary
feeding will be required, not even water unless it is very hot and the baby is
not kept cool or if they are overdressed in too much clothing - this is
increasingly common, often done by mothers due to their own laziness and an
unwillingness to change their baby’s clothing during the day in response to the
changing conditions. Alternatively they have irrational, unfounded and
unrealistic fears about the cold based on their own poor circulation - cared
for babies have excellent circulation.
Breast feeding can be continued as the only source of nourishment up to
even 9 months without any physical deprivation of the baby whatsoever although
this may delay the baby's emotional development through the process of weaning
but by no means irreversibly so.
The antibodies in the colostrum milk produced in the first few days after birth
are absolutely vital for ensuring a natural immunity and resistance to
sickness, disease, allergies (like asthma, eczema or hay fever) and infections
- it is low in fat and carbohydrates and hiigh in protein which is what the
newborn needs then. Breast milk is a perfectly balanced, individually tailored,
easily digested living food and its vitally important nutrients are readily
absorbed by the very sensitive newborn baby's digestive system - iron for
oxygenation of red blood cells and mental development, fatty acids to provide
the vital constituents of cell membranes and nerves, protein for growth and
calcium for the development of strong teeth and bones. The supply and
composition of breast milk automatically adjusts to suit each individual baby
and varies naturally throughout each feed - the first milk has a high lactose
content for quick digestion while later in the feed the milk has more fat (to
help make the baby feel full. Breast milk also varies from day-to-day and over
the entire breast feeding period to suit the changing needs of the growing
infant and supplies a reasonably satisfactory amount of protein and calcium even
if the mother's diet is poor. Breast milk even changes in composition to suit
premature babies - the milk produced is higher in protein and has different
amino acids for the extra growth needed.
Apart from the vital
emotional satisfaction, breast feeding is inexpensive, hygienic and convenient,
saving hours of preparation and endless, pointless and totally unnecessary theorising and research about how much and how often to
feed babies at various stages of development. Breast feeding also reduces the incidence
of breast cancer for the mother and naturally contracts the uterus back into
shape after the pregnancy and birth. Finally, breast feeding delays ovulation
and may stop the menstrual cycle for 7-15 months, easing the strain on the
mother's iron levels at this crucial time. This is a sensible, natural,
effective and completely harmless form of birth control which prevents mothers
being pregnant and breast feeding at the same time, something that is never
right.
Breast fed babies have a
firmer, better and different tissue type to those fed formulas or cows or goats
milk from a bottle as the unnatural sugars in these unsatisfactory alternatives
excessively promote insulin production. This in turn produces too much growth
hormone which results in large amounts of unhealthy and difficult to lose soft
cellulose-type tissue. Breast fed babies have far less respiratory and bowel
infections and their motions are not unpleasant to clean up when compared to
the offensive mess all formulas make of baby's digestive systems. They
experience fewer and less severe problems with colds, diarrhea and ear
infections and breast feeding reduces the risk of diabetes, polio myelitis, liver disease, cancer and obesity both in
childhood and later life as adults.
Breast feeding exercises
different muscles to bottle feeding and when done appropriately does not
distort the shape of young growing mouths. Bottle feeding, especially in
excess, together with dummies encourages deviate swallowing habits with the
tongue forward and pressing the teat against the upper dental arch, narrowing
the room for growing teeth. This can cause speech defects and is certainly
responsible for the very expensive and painful subsequent dental and
orthodontic problems increasingly common today.
To breast feed responsibly
means to sit down quietly, modestly and privately, without confusion, noise or
distraction and concentrate on the experience. - no
other females should be present with the possible exception of the woman's
mother and certainly no males except her husband. Females are increasingly
misusing breast feeding to show off, to get attention, as an excuse for
flagrant exhibitionism and to blatantly expose themselves totally
inappropriately. Any happily married and/or emotionally mature man is offended
by being publicly confronted with any other females' breasts! Feeding a baby in public and especially
whilst walking down the street is simply disgraceful, immodest, attention
seeking and an enormous performance - females who do this should be treated withh contempt.
Babies should not be
allowed unlimited access or frequent and repeated access to the breast (nor to
a bottle) for only a few minutes at a time and they should never be woken to
feed. Modern recommendations to feed five minutes a side are absurdly
regimented, controlling, ignorant and unfeeling and deprive the baby of needed
sucking - it is no wonder people today are so obsessed with eating unnaturally
at fixed times each and every day irregardless of
what they do, where they are, how they feel or what the weather is like. At
first, breast feeding needs to be done regularly but not obsessively so, for
the new born baby on the average 6 times a day for the first 2 weeks, 5 times a
day from 2 to 6 weeks, 4 times a day from 6 to 8 weeks and 3 times daily until
the beginning of weaning at 4-6 months. These figures are indicative guidelines
only – all babies are different and individual.
Feeding habits in the first six months of life will largely determine
how the child will eat and drink later in life as an adult. Aboriginals, Maoris
and Pacific Islanders, for example are notoriously prone to problems with
alcohol, mainly because many of their women are noisy, rough, enormously
overweight, drink copious quantities of liquids and alcohol and allow their
children unrestricted access to the breast up to the absurd age of five years,
a situation that is now becoming more common and accepted among whites.
Women who deliberately
choose to not breast feed do so for reasons of selfish convenience and to avoid
the intense feelings that such a close, intimate and special relationship
brings up. Many deceitfully blame the baby - "he wouldn't take the
breast" or "he rejected the breast", say their milk supply is
inadequate (just because the baby cries) or they lamely claim that "they
can't breast feed" with no further explanation. In these situations the
explanations and excuses so readily accepted without question are never the
truth, just more convenient self-justifications, behaviour
that invariably reflects the absence of a responsible example from the previous
generation of fathers, mothers, doctors and nurses. Men and women who were not
breast fed as babies themselves will find it emotionally very painful to be
involved in and encourage breast feeding their own or other babies. Women often
reject their own babies as a consequence, don't breast feed at all or only
persist with it for a few weeks.
In hospitals
breast feeding is actively, at times aggressively discouraged or made as
difficult as possible by staff for the same reasons, despite their wordy
protestations and claims to the contrary - look at what they do in action for
mothers and babies and ignore all the reassuring words and pretence. Cow’s
and/or goat’s milk (and other dairy products derived from them) are excellent,
convenient, readily available and easily digestible sources of calcium and
protein and are an appropriate and most essential part of the diet of pregnant
and breast feeding mothers and of children during and after weaning. Some women
today are silly enough to believe that you can produce good quality breast milk
from a diet of fruit juice, tea, herbal tea and coffee - no pregnant or breast
feeding mother should drink tea, coffee or alcohol anyway. The modern trend
away from dairy products for mothers and babies is a ludicrous over-reaction to
the gross misuse of bottles and cow’s milk in infant feeding a generation ago.
Milk allergies and milk aversions are only a physical manifestation of the
emotional reaction to inappropriate infantile milk feeding (either grossly
excessive or occasionally insufficient) so that the drinking of a beneficial
amount of milk brings up a great deal of anger, pain and fear which, if not
acknowledged and expressed openly, causes the so-called allergic response. If
drinking milk is persisted and the real care of the person is improved, the
so-called "allergy" will pass along with the expression of the
repressed feelings.
In exactly the
same way, vegetarians are over-reacting to the grossly excessive amount of
fatty, poorly cooked meat fed to them as children - rather than eating (and
enjoying) an appropriate amount of lean, well prepared meat as adults (red meat
perhaps once or twice a fortnight and chicken and fresh fish more regularly),
they deny themselves what is a natural and needed part of the usual diet of men
especially, and women to a lesser extent with their more sensitive digestive
systems. Red meat is delicious and healthy if cooked properly and is an
excellent source of iron and vitamin B12.
These are very difficult to get in a vegetarian diet, just as adequate
calcium is difficult to get without dairy products in the diet.
If a mother is
unsure whether she is producing sufficient breast milk, it is a simple matter
to fully express both sides into a clean measuring jug for reassurance. The
expressing of milk itself, getting plenty of rest and drinking a generous
amount of cow’s milk before, during or after every feed will all help increase
the supply. Women that claim their breast milk supply is inadequate are often
basing this assumption on the fact that the baby cries after being fed because
they cannot conceive of any other reason for a baby's distress other than
hunger. Babies who don't cry after even a good birth at home are being grossly
overfed, not held enough, plugged up with dummies and terrified by being left
alone in bassinettes or prams and so are neither allowed nor encouraged to
express themselves freely. In action, young babies are treated as though they
have only one ‘emotion’, hunger and it is completely disregarded that they
might be just distressed by parental roughness, noisiness, selfishness and
neglect.
Crying Babies, 'Wind' &
'Colic'
In fact it is
important, extremely important, to look at the reasons why babies cry. They do
not cry in hunger unless very badly undernourished and in this case their cries
will be more whimpering and easily recognisable -
nothing like the full throated screams of a baby in emotional distress
expressing terror, pain or anger. It is really irresponsible, lazy and
dishonest to stuff a breast, bottle or a dummy into a baby's mouth whenever he
or she makes the slightest noise. It is also completely wrong to maintain that
breast or bottle fed babies can never be overweight or that they will only take
what they need, yet another fallacy and an example of parents putting their own
responsibilities for proper restraint and limits onto their children.
To begin with,
birth is in itself an extremely scary and traumatic experience and a very difficult
transition for all babies, even those born at home. Consider the change birth
brings about in the baby's environment and how the little person must feel and
this will give a good idea of the adjustments they need to make, adjustments
which naturally will result in some distress. It is patently absurd and a
dangerous delusion to accept that every time a baby cries he or she is hungry
yet that is the approach of so many doctors, nurses, social workers,
nutritionists and other so-called experts. Being held by one or other parent
for many hours during the first few weeks of life is absolutely vital for their
child to feel safe, to learn to trust their parents and to build confidence and
real bonding - this all helps them to adjust gradually to being ‘outside’. This
will encourage them to express their feelings, validate these feelings as
natural and healthy and will make the growing infant feel confident and open
about being themselves - how we really feel is who we are!.
Babies also
cry for a variety of other reasons, both past and present and often this is a
reaction to how they were mistreated in the womb before birth, an environment
which is absolutely horrendous for so many babies today - look at how their
nightmarish mothers behave! Babies cannot express how they felt about this
until after they are born but they will then try to do this if encouraged and
allowed to do so. The birth experience typical of modern hospitals will also
unnecessarily leave the newborn child additionally angry, scared and distressed
- most of the modern home-birth movement iss little better. These feelings have
to come out somehow and if they are simply fed down, the children will become
comatose on the one hand or hysterical on the other and most certainly all
children so treated will become fat, sweaty, sick and diseased, something that
everyone accepts as ‘normal’ today. In
fact babies now are unhealthier and suffer more real distress and sickness than
they ever have in the history of the human race despite the dishonest claims of
most health professionals.
The most
ill-informed and misguided nonsense has been written on the subject of
"colic" in infants, all of it dangerously misleading and totally
incorrect. What is foolishly and incorrectly referred to as "wind" or
colic is only fear - the symptoms clearly prove this. The mediccal
profession of course has no idea what causes the wind because they simply look
at babies as physical objects, with no real emotional reality, and aggressively
deny and repress their own feelings. It is not wind that causes the distress
and the only wind is a fairly harmless result of feeding babies when they are
scared and distressed - they then desperately gulp down their meals to try to
keep down their fear with no hope of adequate digestion. Fear is an awful
feeling especially for these tiny, defenceless and
vulnerable little people who like most so-called adults today will do anything
to avoid facing it. Responsible parents must however set sensible limits for
their children that will ensure that they grow and not encourage them to misuse
food and drink to avoid feeling.
It is not an easy time for
parents when their baby needs a lot of holding while they cry especially during
the night, but it tends to bring all the family together and leads to a greater
self awareness if done maturely and unselfishly. This also gives parents a
wonderful opportunity to take full responsibility for and learn about the
effects of their own behaviour on their baby before
and during birth and will show them just how sensitive and easily hurt small
babies really are. Babies that are not held so that they can get out how they feel, will become very demanding with food and pull roughly
at the breast - even grossly overweight babies quickly learn to suck
desperately on bottles or on breasts to hold down their feelings. This will
obviously cause discomfort and soreness to the mother but is not a
justification for giving up breast feeding. It is just a sign that the baby
needs to be held for a while before being fed - it is never ever right
to feed a baby when they are crying or upset and it is totally unnecessary,
even insane to rush into feeding them as soon as they awake. Many fathers,
mothers, doctors and nurses today behave most bizarrely in this regard,
ridiculously implying that even grossly overweight babies are somehow
"starving". In fact they cannot stand to hear them cry even when it
is for their own good because of the feelings this brings up in themselves. This is one of a number of important reasons why
young babies need the full active involvement of their mature father to set
firm, sensible limits in love.
It most
certainly does not hurt to leave babies crying or to hold them until they
settle - they will then feed better and more peacefully and will properly
digest their food. The validity of doing this will be obvious as your child
will rapidly become more peaceful and happier each day and the emotional
‘letting go’ will also be accompanied by a physical "’etting
go’ - any constipation, diarrhea, congestion, colds, fevers, "colic",
runny noses, dribbling, so-called "teething" irritability or cradle
cap will rapidly disappear. To help with any temporary soreness of her breasts
the mother can regularly rub anhydrous wool fat or lanolin into her nipples.
Babies that
are held, cared for and listened to will start to
demonstrate good voluntary control over their bladder and bowels 6-8 weeks
after birth. Parents need to respond to their toilet needs and take their
nappies off every hour or so from about a month old and hold them gently and
safely over a pot or anywhere else appropriately hygienic. In this way they
will learn very quickly that their parents are listening and this helps build
trust and also saves a great deal of nappy washing. The useless and ignorant
medical profession of course believes that so-called toilet ‘training’ cannot
be started much before 24 months of age because they need training so badly
themselves and spend no real time continuously with any children, least of all
their own. When babies are able to safely sit up unsupported, they can then be
sat on a pot (and later on a child's toilet seat) providing someone watches
them close by. The baby's privacy needs to be respected when they are going to
the toilet and it is most inappropriate to have them sitting on a pot in the
centre of the room around other people or anywhere in public. As early as 3
months and certainly by 6 months any really cared-for child will be using the
toilet normally with very few problems or ‘accidents’ and will only need a
nappy for insurance at night.
Parents who
make no serious effort to respond to their children's toilet needs until they
are 2 years old will often then find that the children deliberately refuse to
co-operate and so clearly are using this as an indirect way of showing how
angry they are at not being listened to so many months earlier. This also
explains the problems, strange preoccupations and very twisted and depraved behaviour that so much of adult society has with this
supposedly simple and straightforward aspect of personal hygiene.
It is
particularly disgraceful just how widespread and generally accepted is the use
of dummies today by parents, social workers, doctors and nurses alike. The
world would be an infinitely better place if the parents that used dummies and
the health professionals who supported their use would put them in their own
mouths, especially the bellowing and shouting males and screeching, squawking
and chattering females. To use a dummy is to say "I don't want to listen
to you", "I don't care how you feel",
"I am not interested in changing my life to suit your needs" and
"your feelings are unimportant and valueless". This behaviour by parents cannot be justified on any grounds
whatsoever and is literally a thinly disguised and particularly callous form of
censorship, intimidation and repression. The most tragic aspect of this is that
babies and young children have so much to teach adults today if they would only
listen and it is really foolish and destructive to invalidate and oppress them
in this way.
It is
admittedly most distressing to listen to a baby cry but the solution is not to
silence them in this irresponsible way with a dummy or dementedly rush into
feeding them. Rather they need to be listened and responded to, recognising that they are telling us how they feel in the
only way they are able. To quote from the 34th Edition of Black’s Medical
Dictionary under Nursing Bottle-mouth: "In no circumstances should a
'comforter bottle' be used. The same applies to the so-called comforter or
dummy, even though this "accursed" instrument, as it has been named,
dates back to the days of the Romans. . . . it is
truly "accursed" and should never be used by any parent who has any
respect for her (or his) children."
There are a
few mothers who simply do not produce breast milk at all, or in greatly
diminished quantities. Some who resist facing the truth about their own
childhoods do not grow even physically from being girls and "anorexia
nervosa" is the extreme example of this. They do not fill out
appropriately during adolescence and will retain a girl's figure, with no
breasts and/or no hips. During pregnancy these emotionally retarded and ungrown females constrain and obstruct the baby from
growing because their own emotional immaturity and rigidity does not allow
natural physical development - they often put on very little weight and retain
their normal figures with the baby just looking like a football from the
outside. This is becoming increasingly common today as more and more females
resist being women - it is one reason why so many mothers are having physical
restriction problems during labour and fail to
produce breast milk. Such females should be discouraged from becoming pregnant
until they have attempted a concentrated program of healing and growing.
Females who do not have these problems are by no means necessarily emotionally
adult.
If a mother is
genuinely unable for whatever reason to breast feed her newborn baby there are
several responsible alternatives available. The best is to find a responsible
"wet nurse" nearby, a peaceful, gentle, healthy and aware woman with
good quality breast milk which she will happily make available to the baby
every day until after weaning. It would be best if she breast fed the baby
directly and any mother who feels awkward or uneasy about this should remember
that this is the best solution for the baby - certainly better than a bottle
from the mother. If family life in our society was sensibly and sanely ordered
in accordance with our real needs, there would always be someone close by who
would be overjoyed at the opportunity of breast feeding someone else's baby who
would otherwise be deprived of this essential emotional and physical
nourishment. If this is always or occasionally impossible, breast milk can be
expressed by the "wet nurse" and then carefully fed to the baby using
an eye dropper, teaspoon or bottle - it is only in these rare cases that
bottles should ever be used and they should never ever be used after weaning is
complete at around 9 months.
There is an
abundance of breast milk available in hospitals today but those in charge
encourage mothers with unused breast milk to throw it away, a clear indication
of how they really feel about breast feeding! It is important to realise that breast pumps are dangerous devices which
damage and grossly enlarge the milk ducts and disrupt future breast feeding.
These pumps are totally unnecessary because breast milk is easiest and best
expressed by hand into a clean container.
Breast Milk Substitutes
When breast milk is
unavailable, establishing the equivalent amount of other liquid milk to give a
baby is not easy because of the enormous amount of misleading and incorrect
information published, much of it produced by government departments. Most of
this just assumes that the present ways of feeding babies are correct or that
you simply feed babies "on demand", with no idea of why the demands
are made. If however parents share in the care of their young baby, they will know
how often and how much they need to be fed.
The quantity of mixed milk
given will vary from one infant to another but it should not be more in total
than one litre a day even when the baby is receiving
milk as the only source of nourishment, just before weaning. It needs to be
appreciated that we are trying to slowly and gently change the baby's eating
patterns from continuous feeding prior to birth, then to frequent,
discontinuous liquid feeding, then to less frequent liquid feeding, the
introduction of solids and finally to solid meals supplemented with liquids.
Most publications today
recommend delaying unnecessarily the time spent in cutting down the number of
feeds per day and also make irresponsible statements about the quantities of
breast milk substitute to be given - one even suggests 150ml per day for each
kilo of body weight irrespective of other nourishment given. An amount equal to
the breast milk supply in equivalent calcium, protein and fat would be an
excellent guide - this means approximately 150-160ml per kilo per day or a
total of 500-600ml per day in the first few weeks of life reducing slowly to
100-110ml per kilo per day or a total of 700-800ml per day until weaning and
the introduction to solids is begun at 4-6 months. The quantity of prepared
mixed milk given per kilogram of weight should vary only slightly from one baby
to another.
No real consideration today
is made for the basic differences between human breast milk on the one hand and
cow’s (or goat’s) milk on the other. The
latter have three times the protein and calcium of human breast milk to satisfy
the enormous growth demands of calves and kids and 300ml of cows or goats milk
has the same protein content as nearly a litre of
good quality breast milk. The curds in breast milk are smaller and easier to
digest and the protein and calcium are both in better forms - too much protein
can even block calcium absorption. Breast milk has more Iron, Vitamin A,
Vitamin C and Vitamin E and 50% more fat than cows or goats milk but is much
lower in mineral content, especially sodium salts.
Feeding young babies the
same volumetric amount of cow’s/goat’s milk as breast milk is irresponsible and
even dangerous yet this is done frequently by mothers today with no real
concern for the consequences - too much cow’s or goat’s milk may even cause
dehydration. Certainly it will cause artificial, excessive and unnatural growth
in weight, height and head circumference which puts an enormous strain on
internal organs. It is no wonder that we are experiencing such increases in the
incidence of bladder, kidney and liver disease. Growth for growth’s sake is
clearly both undesirable and retards emotional development yet our society's
foolish norms and expectations of babies emphasise as
high a rate of growth as possible.
Proprietary formulas and
packaged baby foods are "dead" foods, taste absolutely revolting and
are expensive, inconvenient (in real terms), artificial and completely
unnecessary. Breast milk cannot be duplicated and all the pathetic attempts to produce
a manufactured substitute have been a complete waste of time and money. Early
formulas caused serious anaemia and sometimes death
and it would have been infinitely better to use all the resources misspent on
this essentially parasitic industry to ensure that all mothers can and do
breast feed, not indulging them by providing a "convenient"
alternative which is effectively an instrument of child deprivation.
Simple and easy to prepare
fresh substitutes have been available for centuries anyway and careful blending
of diluted cow’s milk, goat’s milk, soya milk, yoghurt, blended nut milk, egg
yolk, finely powdered and squeezed oats, wheat germ and cultured buttermilk
(whatever is available) is an excellent breast milk substitute providing a
little honey or sugar is added - breast milk is sweet. Cow’s and goat’s milk
should be diluted with water because it is too rich in salts and protein and
rose hip syrup or blackcurrant juice should be added for additional vitamin C.
Generally goat’s milk is a better substitute than cow’s milk but a vitamin D
supplement is necessary in either case whenever a baby doesn't get regular
exposure to sunlight on their skin.
Mothers lie bold facedly
about what they feed their babies, how often they are fed and how much they are
fed, telling their husbands, relations, friends and
doctors what they want to hear rather than the truth. Those that breast feed
often claim that their babies are "only breast fed" when the truth is
most obviously otherwise and supplementary feeding of bottle after bottle of
milk, fruit juice or formula is commonly allowed, sometimes furtively,
additional to unrestricted access to the breast. Bottle fed babies are
frequently given more bottles than is recommended by doctors although these
recommendations themselves are not developed with any care or understanding. In
fact some doctors ignorantly state that babies can be given up to 250ml of cows
milk per kilogram of weight per day - this would mean the equivalent in protein
of seven (7) litres of breast milk a day for a
statistically "large" 6 month old, an absolutely criminal amount -
those that make these sort of recommendations must be aged but unweaned emotional infants themselves. This approach is also guaranteed to ensure
that overweight babies simply get more overweight.
Formulas are themselves
often mixed over-strength and bottle after bottle of this, cows milk and juice
are given with no consideration for what is needed but rather just to keep the
baby quiet so they don't have to deal with the feelings that the baby crying
brings up in themselves.
Weaning
Weaning is
both a physical and emotional process which involves changing the baby
gradually from a liquid to a solid diet and the accompanying separation from
their mother with a move towards their father. It is the time to stop all
sucking behaviour and obviously needs to be started
when babies' first tooth appears or at around 6 months - whichever is sooner.
Weaning will be another emotionally growing time for the whole family and the
baby will again need plenty of holding by both parents, especially by their
father.
Responsible
parents will ensure that their children are breast fed and then fully weaned by
a sensible age (12 months at the latest), feeding them liquids from this point
slowly and carefully using a teaspoon until they are old enough to be able to
drink from a cup. This of course takes patience but that is what real love is
all about. To ensure that weaning is as easy and gradual a transition for
everyone, it is best to first replace the breast feed in the middle of the day
as this will cause least initial distress and disruption. It is important
however for the mother to lie down with the baby at this time for a rest as she
should have normally done after breast feeding. After two or three weeks when
the baby has adjusted to this first solid meal, the morning breast feed can
then be replaced, again followed by lots of holding. Finally the last breast
feed to be weaned off is the one before bed at night, when one parent should
sit and hold their baby until they are asleep, again just as what should have
been done when breast feeding.
The most
convenient, appropriate, balanced and nourishing foods to introduce to a baby
at the beginning of weaning are mashed banana, pear or pawpaw, finely powdered
oats well soaked in cow’s or goat’s milk, wheat germ, cow’s milk or goat’s milk
with a beaten egg yolk and honey, yoghurt and cream, fruit or milk jelly and
junket, steamed or baked sweet potato mashed with butter, and egg custard or rice
custard. Later on sweet mild tasting and finely textured fish poached in milk
and butter is excellent for growing babies. As other sources of protein and
calcium become a regular part of the baby's diet (cheese, yoghurt, buttermilk,
cottage cheese, soy bean curd, tahini, halva, oranges
etc), the amount of prepared milk can be reduced accordingly as weaning
progresses - a small slice of cheese (30gm) is equivalent to 200ml of milk. It
is not right to feed children large quantities of cow’s milk before and during
weaning and 300ml of this per day is generously sufficient after weaning
providing other sources of calcium and protein are adequate. Even in
adolescence when there can be a weight gain of up to ten kilos in a single year
and a rapid increase in height, 600ml of cow’s milk each day is ample.
It is
important to understand that babies are not a separate species or a completely
separate part of life - often the food prepared for the whole family can be
also a part of our baby's meals providing it is appropriately presented for
their smaller mouths and less developed digestive systems. Adults today only
choose to eat unhealthy, nutritionally deficient and imbalanced diets (too much
meat, peeled and overcooked vegetables, canned goods, packaged cereals, white
bread, too much tea and coffee and sweet things) only because eating good,
nourishing fresh food carefully prepared and nicely presented makes them angry
about the rubbish they were off handedly fed as babies and young children and
they wish to avoid these feelings.
Breast milk is
sweet and eating too much sweet things and/or drinking so many "hot"
drinks when older also shows one of the long term effects of being deprived
essential breast feeding as babies, a pathetic, tragic and hopelessly belated
and unsuccessful attempt at compensation. Instead of facing this and dealing
with it constructively, parents often take their own guilt out on their babies
by making a big fuss about sugar, denying them sweet
things inappropriately at the very time they need them and creating yet another
generation with even worse eating and drinking habits.
Holding at
this time not only allows babies to confidently express themselves but is also
vital as it sets physical limits for them in an appropriate, constructive and
gentle but firm way. Children that have been responsibly held and carried will
not become rough, noisy, frantic and hysterical and will learn to be careful
and responsible with themselves and with others. In extreme cases uncared-for
children show the absence of proper care and holding (especially by their
fathers) by becoming autistic, hyperactive or ADHD - the compulsive,
aggressive, excitable, clumsy, frantic and impulsive behaviour
with a low tolerance for failure, short attention span, difficulty with
sleeping and crib rocking associated with these conditions is an obvious and
understandable reaction by those with such special, vulnerable and sensitive
spirits to the deprivation, neglect and abuse so common today.
The medical
profession of course has no idea of the underlying cause, no idea of what to do
for these children nor do they understand why boys are afflicted at nine times
the rate of girls - boys are obviously more damaged and infuriated by being put
upon by their mothers and by being without their fathers than are girls.
Dangerous, reckless, extreme, imbalanced, "disobedient" and
inconsiderate behaviour by children (and subsequently
by supposed adults) who have unrealistic expectations of themselves always
shows that they were not responsibly cared for through this important, crucial
early time of their lives. Medicating
these deprived, neglected and abused children with Ritalin or similar is a
crime!!!
In this sense,
the vast majority of the horrendous problems facing all societies today
throughout the world are easily preventable with a reasonable amount of care at
this stage of children's lives and it is individual parents and grandparents
who are totally responsible for the increasing incidence of violence, crime
& corruption, disease, syndromes and behavioural
disorders, for environmental vandalism, drug and alcohol addictions, gluttony
& avariciousness, selfishness, inconsideration, dishonesty, immorality, ungiving and unsharing behaviour and declining standards of decency, courage and
integrity.
In fact all
babies who are just fed to keep them quiet and who are not held "in
arms" each day will never be settled, never sleep properly, never be
gentle and peaceful and will always disrupt their parents' lives and deservedly
so. They will use an enormous number of nappies (making unnecessary work), will
suffer all sorts of rashes and sicknesses and are guaranteed to have
"accidents" and hurt themselves as the undischarged,
underlying feelings make them more and more frantic and careless.
Because of the
foolish approach to feeding babies today it has become accepted that babies
will make life very difficult for parents whereas cared for babies add
immeasurably to the quality, enjoyment and richness of life for responsible
parents in every way and they cost almost nothing to care for really well. If
you give your baby what he or she needs, they will reward you with peace and
joy and if you don't, they make your entire existences a living hell!
General Care
Important
aspects of general care of babies include how they are generally treated and
handled, how they are dressed, how they are encouraged to exercise control over
their bladder and bowels, how much they are held, how often they are bathed,
where they sleep and how much sleep they are allowed, the care of their hair,
teeth and nails, how they are set limits (so-called "discipline"),
how they are validated and encouraged to grow, develop and learn properly and
the overall environment in which they live.
Generally it
needs to be said that the standards of parenting in the rich, developed
countries of the world today are declining rapidly and the level of basic care
given to babies and young children is considerably less than satisfactory in
all these aspects. Most parents do the
absolute minimum for their children, make the least concessions for them, do
not really listen or respond to them and do not materially change their own
lives to accommodate their real needs - in fact most parents simply impose upon
their unfortunate children a worse version of their own early lives from
conception onwards.
Babies only
need simple, sensible, comfortable, soft, easy to wash and inexpensive
clothing, appropriate to the weather and there is no need for the unnecessary
expense and performance made about layettes. So many mothers treat babies like
dolls and dress them quite foolishly and inappropriately to suit their own
strange perceptions, childish fantasies and personal unresolved emotional
agendas and this is inexcusable. A few cotton singlets
(woollen in winter), cotton T-shirts, long sleeve
skivvies and nighties, two dozen gauze nappies (when
very young, flannelette or toweling when older), two woollen
pilchers (waterproof pants), two cotton flannelette
wraps and a "bunny rug" are all that is really needed for a new born
baby along with a bassinette and some good quality bedding. No headwear is
required as small babies should not be exposed to extremes in temperature or
strong winds and can be wrapped up carefully (swaddled) for protection.
Babies should
not be dressed in complicated, brightly coloured or
patterned clothing with any writing or insulting, self-justifying or nasty
slogans on it but should be dressed neatly and comfortably (without being
dressed up) in clean, soft, plain, pastel coloured
clothing made from natural fibres - there is never
any need to use plastic pants or clothing made from synthetic fibres (nylon, polyesters and acrylics) because these do
not "breathe" and are not soft to the touch. The most effective,
healthy and sensible way to keep babies' clothes clean and soft is to wash them
carefully by hand in warm water using pure soap - washing machines do not get
clothing reallly clean and soap powders make the
clothing smell unpleasant, cause rashes and leave it feeling hard and abrasive
- nappies washed this way are almost imposssible to get a pin through! The
washed clothing should always be hung out to dry in the fresh air and sunshine
whenever possible (or over a fire) because natural fibres
feel really good when dried this way. There is no need for soaking nappies and
this is just an excuse for laziness and is a really disgusting habit - soiled
nappies need to be washed as soon they are changed and hung out to dry -
cleaning nappies straight away is much easier and hygienic.
It is
important that your baby's clothing is clean, put on slowly, patiently and
carefully and changed whenever the weather or the environment changes. It is
selfish and lazy to clothe babies under layer after layer of unnecessary
garments just in case the weather gets cold and then leaving them like this all
day. Mothers today have become so practised at making
dishonest excuses for their selfish laziness and irresponsibility - "it
was cold this morning", "I'll change him when we get home" etc etc.. It is also inexcusable to
leave babies in pyjamas or night attire all day, to
leave bibs permanently fixed around their necks or to leave them with no
footwear when the weather is cold. Teenagers and adults show clearly just how
careless and remiss their parents were in clothing them when they were young,
sometimes over-compensating in bizarre, ugly and inappropriate ways.
For at least
the first few nights after birth, newborn babies need to be put to sleep in
arms and then stay in bed with their parents. This is the best and most natural
arrangement for everyone. and slim, healthy, peaceful
and relaxed parents who have responsibly prepared themselves beforehand will
never pose any danger to their children when asleep in the same bed. It is
vitally important for obvious reasons that parents at this time do not drink
more than a very little alcohol nor take drugs of any kind - fat, drunk or
drugged parents are a menace to their children, whether asleep or awake. Later
when more settled, they can be placed gently into their basket or bassinette
immediately beside their parents’ bed, convenient for breast feeding during the
night. Newborn babies really love going to sleep on their father’s or mother’s
chests or cradled in arms where they feel safe, comfortable and relaxed. A
bassinette mattress filled with tea tree is excellent or any soft, clean
alternative like a sheepskin overlay can be used which is easy to air out. The
best waterproof underlay to use is a woollen blanket
specially designed for this purpose - plastic is never appropriate as it feels
and sounds harsh and artificial and does not "breathe". - covered by
cotton or flannelette sheets and cotton or woollen
blankets depending on the weather. The baby's bedding should be washed and
aired regularly and the bassinette cleaned and put out in the sun whenever
possible.
Babies need to
be held and carried properly, cradled "in arms" across the chest and
not held upright on the shoulder, certainly not until 3 months - this is the
single most important and vital of their needs, helping them feel safe and
secure and so building trust. Parents today actively avoid holding their
babies, inventing all sorts of excuses to justify this when they are only
trying to escape the pain, fear and outrage of not being sufficiently or
appropriately held as babies themselves and putting someone else really first.
Babies do not enjoy being poked, prodded, jiggled or roughly bounced up and
down but feel most comfortable when held firmly and gently or slowly rocked
from side to side by a peaceful and quiet adult. Parents only jiggle babies in
response to their own anxiety, to make themselves feel better and help their
own nervousness. For the same reason so many females carry around their babies
and older children of up to 3-5 years of age, clinging onto them and never
putting them down - this is not productive or healthy holding. They also do
this as an excuse to avoid any and all active work that needs to be done around
them.
It is
especially important for young babies to go to sleep in their parents arms and
then be put down to sleep in their bassinettes or somewhere peaceful in their
prams, never sitting upright in strollers, car seats or capsules. Babies and
children frequently today fall asleep in desperation when absolutely exhausted
because they are never given the space to go to sleep and stay asleep
undisturbed in peace when they need to, for the time they need. Parents
(especially frantic females) simply rush around, most of the time totally
unnecessarily, completely absorbed with their own trivial, senseless and
self-absorbed existences, expecting their unfortunate children to make the best
of this and to fit in where they are able. It is no wonder that people later in
life find it so difficult to know when they are tired and need to sleep and
actually avoid going to bed under a number of unhealthy pretexts. The often
dangerous and sometimes fatal consequences for those who choose to drive when
they are over-tired can be traced to the lack of care during this period of
their lives, the responsibility of their parents and grandparents. In a similar
way people who eat and drink when they are really just tired do so because they
were put to bed with a bottle to go to sleep as babies.
Generally
babies and small children today are treated like inanimate objects, pieces of
luggage or parcels to be lugged around in pouches and back-packs or rushed and
bumped about in prams and strollers, especially up and down stairs. These
physically inappropriate and uncomfortable and emotionally unsatisfactory
instruments of torture are totally unnecessary, unnatural, unsafe and unloving,
purely for the selfish convenience and cowardly evasion of lazy, irresponsible,
immature, indulged parents. They are used by overloaded mothers (along with all
the other artificial restraints like high chairs, play pens, reins etc.)
because they get almost no real support from their own mothers, husbands,
fathers and other relations and friend, because they do not wish to ask for
help or reorder their priorities in their own self-centred
existences, because they want to rush around dementedly trying to escape their
inner anger, pain and terror and because they are "quick, easy and
convenient" for everyone - except the deprived, neglected and abused children.
Parents should
take the time to consider how small, vulnerable and defenceless
little people feel about being confined to these smothering, distressing
devices of deliberate deprivation and hard, rigid, unfeeling, ugly, expensive,
contrived wheeled contraptions instead of being properly held, carried and
patiently encouraged and allowed to walk at their own pace. An appropriate,
comfortable and inexpensive sling for young babies can be made out of a length
of light, soft material which can be tied around the mother’s neck and over one
shoulder but this is rarely necessary unless you do a lot of walking or if your
baby is very overweight. Baby capsules are anything but safe and only ensure
that the baby is separated physically and visually from his or her parents
whenever in the car, the worst possible scenario - the solution is to drive
slowly and carefully and avoid unnecessary trips in the car. Females who use
pouches often wear them across their lower abdomen, in such a way as to pretend
that they are still pregnant, as though their baby has not been born - they
have not come to terms with the birth themselves and do not wish to let their
babies go, grow and develop naturally. Men who wear pouches or push strollers
and prams are embarrassing, look really foolish, silly and incompetent and
should be treated with contempt, disgust and ridicule - they should be so
easily and much more sensibly and conveniently holding and carrying their
children, sharing this with their wives, brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers,
uncles and aunts. The latest fashion to walk with babies and small children in
backpacks or to run or jog pushing a 3-wheeled stroller or taking babies to the
incredible clamour of aerobic classes is just cruel
and cowardly sadism.
As babies grow
they need to be ‘weaned’ physically away from their parents, a gradual process
of separation done at a rate everyone is comfortable with. First they are moved
from their parents' own bed into a bassinette beside their bed and then later
further away but in the same room. If the baby has had plenty of holding and
proper care, they can be then moved into a separate room during the latter
stages of weaning them off the breast, around 6 to 8 months, although this can
be done sooner if there is an older brother or sister to share a room with
them. Brothers and sisters who have been brought up with real care and
encouraged to be involved will be perfectly safe and responsible although this
must never be imposed or forced upon them - so-called ‘sibling rivalry’ is a
natural response and jealous reaction which always reflects a lack of proper
love and care, especially the physical and emotional absence of involved
fathers.
Babies need
fresh air and sunshine whenever possible each and every day and can be put carefully
outside on a blanket somewhere sheltered in filtered sunlight with no clothes
on. Apart from really enjoying this time so essential for their health, babies
need regular sunshine for their skin and in order to produce vitamin D -
whenever the weather keeps them indoors for long periods, a fish oil supplement
may be necessary. While outdoors they can be given a bath in
a bowl or baby's bath and this is probably the best and most convenient and
enjoyable place to do this. In warm weather the water can be made quite
cool but the baby should be eased into this very gently and slowly. As well as
at least one bath a day, even small babies can be taken under the shower with
one or other of their parents and if done carefully they will really enjoy this
- do not put their heads under the water ass it scares them. Babies also enjoy a
regular gentle massage with coconut, almond or any natural oil, especially at
difficult times.
There is no
excuse for nappy rash and it only happens when parents grossly overfeed their children on bottle after bottle of fluid,
promoting continuous urination and are too lazy to change nappies regularly and
not wash their babies every time they remove a wet or soiled nappy. Bad nappy
rash can only be truthfully described as cruel torture for babies and they have
no escape from this extreme discomfort and pain – it is an indication of child
abuse! If any rash does appear, it can be immediately fixed by lying the baby
across the parent's knees and exposing the affected areas carefully to the sun
for half an hour or so. Bathing in seawater or salt water is also very good
when the baby is a little older, say 3 months or so.
Babies and
children should never be rushed under any circumstances - if you are not
prepared to slow down and reorder your selfish life, then don't have children
in the first place because this really distresses them. Everything
done with and to children needs to be done slowly, carefully, gently,
patiently and quietly. This is particularly important when they are first able
to walk and is a wonderful lesson in patience for parents because slowing down
their own lives will improve its quality remarkably. It is really nasty and
sadistic to be impatient with your children and to rush them around when
underneath you are really just angry with the people that rushed you when you
were young - your own parents, other relations and teachers.
The most
appropriate way to feed babies when they are able to sit up is to sit with them
on some cushions on the (clean!) floor. High chairs and baby chairs fixed to
tables are not only dreadful artificial devices and completely unnecessary but
can even be dangerous - the use of potty chairs, especially without proper
privacy, is sick, twisted and deviate and it promotes all kinds of subsequent
bizarre and unhealthy behaviour and attitudes about
this perfectly normal aspect of personal hygiene. While your baby is still
unable to sit unsupported they can be sat on either their father's or mother's
laps to eat, feeding them first before the rest of the family - later they can
be sat next to you and share in the meal. Whenever their mouths, noses or hands
need to be wiped this should be done gently, thoroughly and frequently with a
clean, soft, moistened cloth and not roughly attacked with a filthy bib or rag
as is so often the case today.
Generally
speaking children should be fed first at meals and fed by one or other of their
parents, carefully and slowly. Babies and young children need to be fed using
small spoons (teaspoons or smaller) appropriate to the size of their small
mouths. It is really disgusting and
inexcusable the way babies are so often fed today having food impatiently shovelled into their mouths using far too large dessert
spoons. What is worse is the mess that parents make or allow their baby to make
by virtually forcing a young child to eat too fast or making them feed
themselves long before they are physically able or ready.
Later, when
starting children feeding themselves, their food should always be sliced or
broken into manageable size pieces or portions that they can manage with their
small hands and fit easily into their small mouths. Babies are often given enormous pieces of
food for their size that they are completely unable to handle (whole slices of
toast or a whole piece of fruit), an excuse for promoting ‘independence’ and a
way to force children to grow up too soon in response to parental selfishness,
laziness and irresponsibility (especially mothers’). They are left with food all over their faces
and all around where they eat, which is uncomfortable, embarrassing and
humiliating for the child. I is however
reasonable to conclude that females today especially enjoy this and those who
find it amusing are literally sadistic, cruel perverts who should be treated
with outrage, contempt, disgust and disapproval. The revolting ways in which so
many teenagers and ‘adults’ eat today like savages are a clear indication of
just how lazy, dirty, gluttonous and greedy the present and past generations of
parents and grandparents have been.
After weaning,
babies need their lives to be as free from fixed routines as possible, flexibly
ordered in keeping with their varying individual daily needs as growing human
beings. If they are included as a part of the family's life, they will then be
naturally exposed to a full range of experiences and activities necessary for
their best development, growth and learning. Instead of this natural
assimilation, our society today, largely because of the abdication and physical
absence of fathers, has effectively segregated babies and young children into
artificially separate groups. These then have imposed upon
them a completely fabricated, contrived and unreal learning process and
lifestyle at creches, preschools and kindergartens
which is ridiculously unhealthy, inappropriate and extremely damaging to their
future development and narrows and distorts their perception of reality.
Babies in particular are treated as though they are almost an entirely
different race or species of being and this approach is not only absurd and
indefensible, it is very destructive for everyone. Children are part of an
amorphous group called "kids" (no-one who loves children calls them
or refers to them as “kids”), all with exactly the same feelings and supposed needs. Actually children are individual little
people and should be treated as such, especially twins or other multiple
births.
Babies and
young children should always be treated with more respect and care for their
space than that accorded to adults as they are much more sensitive, vulnerable,
defenceless and reasonably dependent. It is never
right to treat even babies like fools, call them names, make fun of them or put
them down, even in jest - this is not really funny at all, just cowardly and
sadistic. This includes dressing them in clothing that has "cute",
derogatory or unpleasant names or slogans printed on them. Critical comments
made by parents about their children are invariably true of the parents
themselves, a nasty way of off-loading guilt and avoiding facing their own
irresponsible behaviour - common examples of this are
"fat", "greedy", "lazy", "terrors",
"monsters", "devils". Parents today are all these things
and more.
Music is a
very important natural part of family life and small children should be able to
listen to gentle and soft, good quality music at least some of the time each
day, preferably played and sung by the rest of the family. This essential
preparation will ensure that as they grow up they will learn to play a musical
instrument and sing themselves rather than become a
non-contributing, voyeuristic bystander and spectator who needs to be
self-indulgently entertained with purchased prerecorded music. Fathers
especially have totally abdicated their responsibility to provide leadership by
example for appropriate musical expression because they choose to run away from
all their own feelings of inadequacy and embarrassment in this regard. This is
a legacy of how they were invalidated, ridiculed, made fun of and not
encouraged as children themselves, the responsibility of their own fathers,
mothers and teachers.
It is
extremely important to teach children to really value and care for their own
bodies, to appreciate how special and beautiful they are and learn to be very
careful with themselves around other people, especially strangers. Whenever a
baby is changed, dressed, bathed or handled in any way this needs to be done
with gentleness and respect for their bodies. This is especially important when
mothers are touching and holding their sons and when fathers are touching or
holding their daughters because these contacts either form healthy, responsible
and trusting relationships or the increasingly common, inappropriate and unsavoury, sexual, promiscuous and even deviate relationships
between men, women and children. Privacy and modesty should be naturally taught
from a very early age and care needs to be exercised even with family
relations, especially of the opposite sex. Even babies should not be without
clothing in public, not even at the beach, and from the age children are able
to bathe and dress themselves safely, they should never be naked in front of
anyone, ever, not even their parents at home.
All those who really
believe that the human body is wonderful, special and natural are always modest
and never expose or flaunt themselves in any way, not naked or even
semi-clothed, not bare to the waist (neither men nor women), no sleeveless
tops, low neck lines, short skirts or bare stomachs or backs. Adults are only
ever naked in front of their own spouses and perhaps on rare occasions whilst
taking their same sex children into the shower with when they are babies. Those
that want to misuse their bodies in unclean, indirect, unhealthy,
inappropriate, sexually explicit, provocative and sexual ways in order to get
attention, to show off, manipulate others, get their own way and to cause
trouble, conflict and jealousy, deceitfully misrepresent and defend this behaviour with the usual lies, half-truths, implausible
explanations, distortions of reality, excuses, inane self-justifications, cliches and platitudes. Far from being healthy, natural,
tolerant and broad-minded they are actually degrading, dishonouring,
demeaning and cheapening their bodies in what is really just a seedy perversion,
a form of voyeurism and exhibitionism.
It is
important that men spend much more time with their sons than is usual and
accepted today - from two years of age, sons need to start to spend more time
with their fathers than with their mothers, being involved naturally in real
learning situations and so not needing artificial distractions (toy cars,
boats, building sets etc) which demean the whole nature and value of life.
Similarly daughters need to spend much more time with their mothers than with their
fathers, learning about the fulfilment, joy and peace
that is a natural part of being a real woman, wife and
mother within a true marriage. If this happened, our society would not be
showing the clear symptoms of sexual confusion so widespread nowadays -
self-awareness has been replaced with a lot of contrived nonsense about
"roles" and "role models" written by so-called experts that
have no idea about their own essence or needs yet presume to advise others.
Generally
fathers now spend more time with their daughters than with their sons and
mothers with sons rather than with their daughters because this is so much
easier emotionally. However this creates friction, conflict, resentment,
jealousy and division, indulges children at the same time as using them and
allows both sons and daughters an easy way of avoiding coming to terms with
their primary relationship with their same sex parent. It is no wonder that so
many sons today are so wimpish and useless around
females and so many girls grow up confused trying to be men and following their
father's awful example in pointless, trivial and meaningless work aspirations.
Being involved as a real father with their sons (and not using them as ‘mates’)
brings up very intense feelings about their own fathers and childhoods which
they are too cowardly to confront and deal with. So many fathers compete with
their sons, discourage and obstruct them from growing and treat them worse than
their own fathers treated them and a similar situation exists between mothers and
daughters. Relationships within families
today have become very twisted, dishonest, competitive, indirect, attention
seeking and game-playing because parents refuse to grow up themselves and so
impose a worse version of their own childhoods and family relationships upon
their unfortunate children. In general, children are deprived, abused,
neglected and indulged and this is disastrous for everyone.
What a baby is
called is one of the most important and serious considerations yet many silly,
competitive, insecure, jealous, attention-seeking and immature parents today
increasingly call their children by absolutely ridiculous, embarrassing,
foolish, bizarre and totally unsuitable names to satisfy their own unresolved
emotional agendas - as a way of showing off or to reflect somee
transitory or temporary fetish, craze or spiritual fantasy. This is a really
twisted thing to do as it causes enormous distress to children who have no
choice about the situation, at least until they are adults. Naming a son the same
as his father is also confusing and never motivated by good or sensible
intentions - it prevents the boy from having his own separate space and
identity from the start and no-one ever likes to be called junior - it is
demeaning and patronising. There is an appropriate,
suitable, straightforward, right and correct name for each and every child in
the world and they will always respond clearly to this even at a few days old -
they will also not respond to the wrong name if parents would only listen. Just
because a child has a name in common use does not make them any less special or
individual yet so many people cannot see this because they themselves were not
treated as individuals by their parents or teachers when young. This often
motivates relatively small spirited parents to call their equally small
spirited children by important and significant names and cal their children
with exceptional spirits by ordinary or demeaning names which
is equally damaging and confusing. Finally it is important to always use
children's names, treat them like real individuals and not refer
to them as "bubs", "honey", "sweetie" or the
other commonly used group labels like "kids" which are not terms of
affection or endearment at all.
It is completely
inappropriate and even quite savage the way both males and females wear their
own hair so short these days and cut their sons’ and daughters’ hair. This is
invariably done as a way of avoiding facing the anger about how short their
hair was cut as small children, how roughly it was cut and how uncared for,
uncombed and unbrushed it was then. It takes patience
to look after children's hair of the right length, especially daughters’ long
hair but this is the only way to learn it. In effect, fathers and mothers cut
their children's hair to fulfil their own selfish
convenience and unpleasant, unresolved emotional agendas and not in response to
what their children really need. Babies and young children need their hair
washed regularly and brushed and combed gently and carefully several times a
day. Boys' hair should be allowed to grow until it reaches their shoulders which is an appropriate length for both boys and
later as men - it should be trimmed gently and will not look in any way
effeminate if done with care. Boys do not look effeminate anyway unless
emasculated by spending too much time with females. It is really important to
not cut girls' hair at all except when it needs to be lightly trimmed for their
comfort.
Setting limits
for older children means to first explain all relevant details of each new
situation carefully and thoroughly to them, telling them or showing them what
they can and cannot do, what they can and cannot touch, where they can and
cannot go. This is in particular the responsibility of fathers, uncles, grandfathers
and any other responsible men present. It also means proper close supervision
and monitoring appropriate to the individual children's ages and not related to
what parents might want to do themselves at the time or their selfishly
motivated, unrealistic expectations of their children. All too often these days parents and especially fathers completely abdicate this
important responsibility and then shout at or even hit their children when they
do something that has not even been pointed out to them as wrong. Children are
intentionally left unsupervised in potentially hazardous situations and they
usually learn the hard way with disastrous effects - the so-called
"accidents" causing injury and even death especially to teenagers
later in life. All are the sole essential responsibility of their parents, yet
another example of thinly disguised neglect and child abuse by default.
Fathers should
fulfil a completely different responsibility to
mothers, essentially one of conditional, unselfish concern and protection and
really putting everyone else first. Overall, fathers need to ensure that their
families are generously provided for, that they are treated justly with
gentleness and firmness, that everyone behaves themselves safely and
considerately and that individual members deal with their feelings directly and
productively and so grow. Because children today are not validated nor allowed
to express how they feel openly, they soon learn to indirectly discharge their
feelings as best they can - by being frantic, noisy, running around, shouting
and screaming and by being deliberately inconsiderate and provocatively
annoying. Adults don't wish to accept that this is intentional and angry
because they don't want to admit how they really feel themselves nor that they
are also indirect in the same ways with their own anger, fear and pain.
It is hopeless
and a complete waste of time to tell young babies and children to behave
themselves when their (mis)behaviour
is just a way of trying to escape how they feel inside. Yelling or shouting at
or trying to intimidate children of any age into submissive obedience and all
traditional forms of so-called discipline are also completely useless,
counterproductive and only postpone the inevitable, unpleasant future consequences.
Threatening or hitting children is just cowardice and brutal sadism which
destroys their trust - children are largely unable to set their own limits and
they are only showing by their so-called misbehaviour
the selfishness, abdication of responsibility and incompetence of the adults in
their home and school environment.
Parents need to listen,
really listen to their children from conception, change their lives
accordingly, devote themselves unselfishly to their real needs and in
particular ensure that their children get plenty of holding when they are
babies - this builds trust and mutual respect and allows them when young and
physically manageable to get out all their most intense, deep feelings at a
time when this is easiest. The older they get, the harder it will be to
restrain them appropriately and it is much easier to hold a small baby than a
teenager who has over a decade of unexpressed lethal rage! However physically
restraining even older children is possible and productive providing it is done
gently and firmly, by several men where necessary - they will soon trust you
again anyway and will become easier to handle when they appreciate they are
being listened to at long last and realise how much
better they feel each time they get out some of their emotional backlog.
'Cot Death' or Sudden Infant Death Syndrome
Cot or SIDS
covers a number of reasons for untimely infant deaths, all of which without
exception are both totally avoidable and a direct consequence of abuse,
neglect, deprivation and the absence of real love and care in the womb, at
birth and in early life. All those who are unable or unwilling to face this
fact know absolutely nothing about their own feelings, about how small babies feel nor about the human spirit itself. In fact many
of these unfortunate babies simply give up because the pretence and lack of
care causes them so much distress, so much fear and pain - exactly like the
premature babies in humidicribs who simply (and to
ignorant health professionals, inexplicably) stop breathing.
Other babies
are so grossly overweight, increasingly common and widespread today, that when
put down to sleep on their stomachs, they suffocate themselves, inert and
unable to move under the over-whelming burden of fat that is so crippling to
both body and spirit. Notwithstanding this, this sleeping position on the
stomach can be used with absolute confidence and safety with cared-for babies
of the right weight, a position in which they can relax and blessedly go to
sleep successfully even if jumpy and nervous during emotionally intense times -
many babies are so distressed that they simply cannot go to sleep properly on
their backs as they repeatedly jerk themselves awake.
A conservative
estimate is that over 80% of all parents today, in a desperate attempt to quieten their babies down and stop them crying or screaming
when they are very upset, at some time actually try to smother (with a pillow
or something similar), choke, shake or otherwise brutalise
and terrify them, just like their own parents did to them. Although this is
(fortunately) rarely fatal, it accounts for over 50% of all SIDS deaths and
also has disastrous long term consequences for all those children that survive.
For example, every single child with asthma (which now afflicts about 20% of
the total population) has without exception been suffocated in some way when
very young. No-one wants to face and acknowledge what is really happening nor
accept the obvious evidence available from looking at how children behave
because no-one wants to look at the truth of their own
childhoods nor their own behaviour as parents.
It is
certainly no real solution to Cot Death to so foolishly and simplistically
focus on any superficial symptom while failing to look at the real, underlying
causes and issues, Enormous amounts of money worldwide are being stupidly
squandered on SIDS research, a wasteful indulgence and desperate attempt to try
to find a more 'convenient', 'palatable' and 'acceptable' explanation which
provides both parents and health professionals with the usual externalised, dishonest and platitudinous
self-justifications and excuses. After spending years and millions of dollars,
the 'experts' have 'miraculously' discovered that SIDS is aggravated by mothers
who smoke during pregnancy, who avoid breast feeding and who use bottles
instead. These simplest and most basic aspects of child care are known
intuitively by, and are blatantly obvious to, all caring parents and have been
for thousands of years!!!
The
essentially parasitic, stupid and astonishingly ignorant medical scientists and
other doctors involved and all who support them should be treated with complete
contempt and ridicule. Even when confronted directly with the truth, they
deliberately avoid examining the issues raised in an open and unbiased manner
and refuse to even try to prove or disprove claims that conflict with or
seriously question their own blinkered mentality and tenuous grasp on reality -
they have so much to hide, to be ashamed of and to lose both privately and professionally.
To truthfully and usefully
re-express and rephrase the pathetically inadequate, essentially incorrect and
criminally misleading and negligent findings, explanations and recommendations
from all SIDS research:-
1) Breast feeding is vital
and any and all bottle feeding of babies of any age is a form of child abuse,
neglect and deprivation to be deplored, an effective rejection by mothers of
their babies and an inexcusable deliberate denial of intuitive maternal
instincts.
2) Smoking by either parent
is not only fundamentally unhealthy but adversely compromises their ability to
care for themselves or their children due to the emotional dishonesty which
underlies the habit. Babies also suffer because they feel the unexpressed
feelings held down by their parents’ smoking and are unable to escape this
torment - they are always aware of the enormous difference between what adults
say to them and how they really feel about them. In addition, smoking
monstrously offends babies by the repulsive stench of both the smoke itself and
their parents’ breath - the babies young, pristine and unsullied sense of smell
(and taste) is extremely sensitive. Smoking around babies is as a consequence
directly responsible for problems with the nose, throat, chest
and with breathing - in particular it is an important contributing factor with
tonsillitis, asthma and bronchitis. Smoking, along with excessive or continuous
noise is also a cause of wax build up in and infections of the ears - the
so-called glue ear is yet another physical response (and natural understandable
defence) by babies and young children to being
constantly assailed, especially by loud and incessant talking females. Smoking
is therefore an obvious form of child abuse which should be openly and publicly
criticised, reproved and treated with disgust unless
those so addicted' seek help and genuinely try to overcome this debilitating
habit, immediately.
3) Cared-for babies of the
right weight can be safely put down to sleep in any position comfortable to them.
Predictably
Red Nose Day is a silly, contrived, childish, embarrassing and at best
ill-intentioned, misguided and misinformed performance motivated as usual by
anything but genuine concern for babies. This useless exercise in hypocrisy,
pretence and deceit only serves to disguise the actual culpability of most
parents, grandparents and health professionals today while providing a
physically easy and emotionally expedient opportunity to affect a brief,
entirely dishonest external show of being caring and a way of off loading guilt
about their own child abuse, deprivation and neglect. This takes the focus off
what is really going on, lets everyone avoid confronting and dealing with the
real issues and gives them an excuse to not put full effort into proper,
diligent, involved, active child caring on the other 364 days of the year.
Premature
Babies
Doctors can
never leave anything alone and they literally torment, torture and experiment
upon patients in their infantile pursuit of recognition and their unfeeling
idle curiosity. The best example of this is the totally unnecessary and
completely avoidable brutal torture, torment, deprivation, neglect and criminal
abuse of tiny, defenceless and extremely sensitive
and vulnerable premature babies which, without doubt, is the greatest single
atrocity and most monstrous and inexcusable violation of human rights in the
world today, perpetrated against the most vulnerable, defenceless
and precious of GOD's gifts. Together with irresponsible and selfish
parents, doctors and nurses cause prematurity directly or by default with their
counter-productive advice and destructive intrusions during pregnancy. Without
any doubt premature births are completely avoidable and the only reason that
no-one in either the medical or nursing professions understands this (or wants
to acknowledge it is that they are all blinded and shut-off to the emotional
realities of life.
Infants are
born prematurely due to a number of simple, easy to understand and overcome
factors: many are effectively expelled from the womb by mothers whose own
repressed anger, pain and fear has built up to such an intolerable level that
their physical and emotional well-being has become seriously compromised
causing labour to involuntarily begins too early -
their baby will have already had to endure an enormous amount of suffering and
distress in the womb. In some cases pregnancy is disrupted by physical factors
caused by overweight mothers who are either inactive and exercise too little,
by those who are undernourished, who indulge in excessive, rough or frantic
exercise or activity that is not gentle and careful and those who abuse alcohol
or drugs.
However
without doubt the greatest culprits in this regard are interfering doctors who
intrude in so many dangerous and inappropriate ways. There are
those in the habit of inducing labour artificially or
who deliver babies by caesarean section for the 'convenience' of the mother or
who are (wrongly) believe to be "overdue" -
they then discover that they were not even full term. Finally there are the
premature multiple births of undersized infants which are a common outcome of
the artificial induction of conception using fertility drugs, artificial
insemination and 'in vitro' techniques - doctors typically take no responsibility
for the horrendous subsequent consequences of their criminal interference.
Following the torment,
savagery and roughness of the usual modern pregnancy and typical hospital birth
(often an operation and not even a birth as such), premature babies after
delivery are subject to the most horrifically brutal and callous mistreatment
imaginable in the so-called 'special care' units or stables in hospitals all
over the world. Here they are completely denied every single one of their
simplest, most basic and important primary needs - undisturbed rest, clean,
tidy, quiet, peaceful, pleasant smelling and dimly lit surroundings, gentle,
careful, slow and considered handling, constant holding, warm, soft snug
clothing and bedding and regular and frequent breast feeding. It is hard to conceive of a worse environment
in which to put these most precious, sensitive and vulnerable of GOD’s gifts nor a less
appropriate way of dealing with their situation.
Exposed naked in plastic
box-like humidicribs or laid out like dolls on open
trays and blinded by constant bright fluorescent lighting, premature babies are
viciously violated, absolutely terrified, literally assaulted and treated as
though they have no real feelings at all. They are constantly disturbed, repeatedly
interfered with and continuously distressed by medical and nursing staff with
their constant unnecessary intrusions and incredibly rough and impatient
handling. At best these grossly overindulged, thoughtless, unaware, noisy and
emotionally shut-off and hardened individuals behave with criminal
inconsideration, thoughtless disregard and inconceivable negligence. Many
however are behaviourally disturbed, pathologically
dangerous, certifiably deranged, deliberately cruel and rough sadists who are
fully aware of what they are doing and of the implications and effects of their
actions - most should never be allowed anywhere near any living creature
without the closest and most stringent supervision and monitoring.
Most staff actually resent
making any concessions whatsoever for those little people they are paid to care
for and refuse to make any real effort to be careful, quiet, considerate,
patient, gentle and diligent. Any aware, caring adult is absolutely horrified,
disgusted, outraged, infuriated and sickened at how staff chooses to behave
every day in every single one of these places of systematic sadism.
Babies are deprived of
essential breast feeding or even of breast milk with its vital physical
nourishment and the natural defence it provides against
infection. Instead they are unnecessarily fed through tubes painfully inserted
through the nose, stupidly and inappropriately given vast quantities of fluid
intravenously as saline or sucrose drips, covered with wires and monitors, have
enormously painful, uncomfortable and intrusive catheters, oxygen head boxes or
respirators, sample bags and blood tests imposed upon them or inserted into
their bodily orifices and are generally mistreated like sub-human objects in
some sick, twisted and depraved scientific experiment. The sole criterion of "progress"
and the only measurement of "improvement" is as usual the foolish
preoccupation with weight, as though their gravitational attraction to the centre
of the earth somehow provided an indication of real growth, health or
recovery. Weighing them is not only
totally unnecessary but distressing and yet another excuse to disturb them.
Most staff realise what they are doing yet in their pride, arrogance,
stupidity and impertinence they choose to excuse, gloss over, rationalise, justify and lie about what is essentially a
sadistic and illegal crime thoroughly deserving of imprisonment.
Because premature babies
are not supposed to have been born, what they really need is to be provided
with an environment as much like the womb as possible for roughly the same
number of weeks as their prematurity. This sensible, logical and
straightforward approach, apparently beyond the intellectual grasp of the
average health professional, means that principally and most importantly these
babies should to be continuously, gently and peacefully held by one of their
parents or other family members for days, weeks and even months if necessary
unless sound asleep or until well settled. When put down they need to be made
to feel safe and secure by surrounding them on all sides with pillows or
rolled-up soft bedding. They should be wrapped in soft, natural swaddling
material like cotton flannelette, kept warm (not hot or cold), be only exposed
to dim, soft lighting (not bright or fluorescent), handled extremely slowly,
gently and carefully, changed regularly, bathed and massaged at least twice a
day, introduced gradually to a little filtered sunlight, never prodded, poked,
injected or interfered with in any way and never subjected to any loud noise,
sudden movement or unpleasant smell.
In other words their
primary needs are to feel safe and secure, to get plenty of undisturbed sleep,
to be breast fed by their peaceful mother (they should be fed often and
frequently, a small quantity each time) and finally to be allowed and
encouraged to express any and all repressed feelings relating to what has
happened to them during pregnancy and birth. If they will not or cannot take to
the breast, they need to be slowly and patiently fed expressed breast milk
using a tiny spoon or eye dropper many, many times each day, a little at a
time. If they really needed oxygen this could be given by gently holding a
small, comfortable mask over their mouths either continuously or for regular
intervals as required - the plastic oxygen head boxes used in hospitals are
quite horrible, distressing and uncomfortable. If this sensible, practical,
humane and inexpensive approach to real care was taken with premature babies,
those that survived would improve rapidly and respond without any of the
inevitable appalling side-effects of the mistreatment given to them in
hospitals. In fact parents could realistically expect that their baby would be
quite normal by their originally anticipated birth date or even sooner.
It is obviously
acknowledged that the very tiny premature babies would not survive but being
back with their MAKER would be infinitely more preferable for so many suffering
children than to be literally and deliberately tormented by these dangerously
deluded deviates in a premature babies ward not to mention the emotional and
physical side effects, injuries and permanent disabilities so many suffer
afterwards as a consequence. Parents of premature infants who do not survive
even when given proper, sensible, inexpensive and devoted care need to come to
terms with what they have themselves done to their baby during pregnancy and
birth, mourn their baby properly, learn from the experience and so become
better parents in future - the death of their child would not then be a waste.
What impertinent effrontery
and fraudulent misrepresentation it is for doctors and nurses to imply that
they are caring, effective, competent and indispensable when the truth about
the treatment of premature babies is considered! Keeping these tiny human beings alive is a
crime and the real motives for so doing are not related to any genuine concern
for the babies themselves but rather reflect a dishonest desire by all
concerned, doctors, nurses and parents, to avoid coming to terms with their own
reprehensible misconduct and irresponsibility in causing the problem in the
first place and to not confront and deal with their own fears and pain about
death and dying.
When these unfortunate
infants finally escape from the hospital, they carry an enormous additional
unresolved burden of unexpressed fear, rage and pain as a result of what has
been done to them - they always have a particular deprived look about them
which will remain as long as they are denied the opportunity to express how they
feel at length. Few people today really understand or want to understand the
horrifying extent of such damage nor what can be and must be done to heal it -
it took for example nearly two years to undo and rectify what was done to one
baby who was only three weeks early, who weighed over 5 lbs at birth and who
was only in the hospital for four short weeks. A very small premature baby
would take ten years or more to properly heal! None of the accepted treatment
of premature babies today is necessary for their survival,
it is just a particularly vicious and inexcusable form of child abuse and the
evasion of responsibility and accountability.
Doctors and nurses may have
the vast majority of people in society bluffed, effectively deceived and scared
into silent submission and passive acceptance of their assumptions, methods and
treatment but in effect all they have done is create a nightmare where
increasingly difficult, complicated and expensive decisions and interventions
need to be made. Because doctors are so fond of interfering, experimenting,
"playing GOD" and saving life at any cost without any proper concern
for the repercussions, they prolong the agony and distress of so many
vulnerable little people. If they all stopped intruding into matters that don't
concern them and that they are hopelessly untrained and emotionally
ill-equipped to deal with or have any useful opinions about, if they stopped
taking away parents' responsibility for their own children's health and
well-being, if they stopped giving parents an "easy way" out which
ends up causing enormous distress to the baby and if they had the real faith
and integrity to allow babies to die when appropriate, the current situation
would simply not exist at all.
Love is clean, tidy, organised, simple living with genuine consideration for and
unselfish devotion to the needs of others and real concern for and avoidance of
indulgence, gluttony, avarice, waste, duplication, excess, inequity, injustice,
violence, pollution and environmental destruction. Everything else is
dishonesty, laziness, selfishness, greed, irresponsibility, hypocrisy and
pretence accompanied by the usual easy, empty words, the fabricated lies,
implausible excuses and platitudinous self-justifications so common today. Love
is a feeling translated into action - without the action there is no love.
Michael & Mary Israel † 
3) Forensic Mental Health & Violence – The Case of Martin Bryant
In 2004 my
now 66 year old wife Mary Israel spent several nights in a cell directly
opposite Martin Bryant in the
hospital of that place of infamy, the Risdon Prison, in
For
background information read the section on
www.geocities.com/michael_the_one
It seemed
appropriate to write down more detail on Martin Bryant’s case because the vindictive frauds, cowardly
parasites and violent sadists employed at and consultant to the Risdon Prison
and Wilfred Lopes Centre for Mental Health have learned absolutely nothing
from the experience of being in his life.
They have totally squandered a GOD-given opportunity to understand and rehabilitate
Martin Bryant and have just tormented and experimented upon him for
absolutely no purpose or gain. In the process they have ruined his health and
reduced him to exactly the same state most of them are in themselves - a drug
addicted, grossly "obese, shambling, isolated shell" of a human being
and unweaned, retarded aged infant with “an emotional age of about 5
years"!! These quotes are from consultant forensic psychiatrist Paul
Mullen. Do they ever have "a grandiose sense of their own worth",
just more of the un-faced guilt that they have offloaded onto Martin Bryant who
potentially had a hundred times their quality of spirit!
I urge that those seriously interested in Martin Bryant (DOB 7th
May 1967), his background, the underlying reasons for his horrific crime and
his present circumstances, read the document "Violence" on the same
web site.
The standard of forensic mental health in Tasmania, like the rest of
Australia, is absolutely appalling and most of those involved in this vital
area have absolutely no idea whatsoever about the root causes of the intimately
related issues of violence, "mental" health, alcohol & drug abuse
and general criminal offending. See “Health & Healing” on the same web
site, especially the section on "mental" illness, bearing in mind
that in over 200 years of modern psychiatry, the profession has been involved
with over 500 million patients worldwide at a cost of hundreds of billions of
dollars yet has not cured nor identified the root causes of the “mental”
illness and/or behavioural difficulties for one single patient!
For a better
insight into and understanding of individual feelings, behaviour, attitudes,
beliefs, needs and relationships, also read either "Men Everywhere"
or “Women Everywhere”. This is a vital prerequisite to understanding violence
in any of its forms.
As Martin
Bryant has been completely in the “care” and control of the Tasmanian
Departments of Corrections and Health & Human Services since the day of his
offence, they are totally responsible for the disgraceful deterioration in his
physical and emotional wellbeing. In fact, in the absence of firearms, Bryant
poses absolutely no danger nor threat whatsoever to anyone yet these meddling
menaces and destructive ignoramuses have prescribed huge doses of unnecessary,
involuntary, debilitating medication for him in their vindictive vendetta, idle
curiosity and pathetic, insecure pursuits of professional fame and recognition!
All to no avail!
Despite what
Martin Bryant so horrifyingly did all those years ago, he was once a beautiful
child with a lovely spirit who potentially had an enormous amount to contribute
if only the people around him had listened. They didn't, starting with his
nightmarish parents, and especially his awful mother Carleen.
Martin was certainly not conceived
‘badly damaged’ ‘with a personality disorder’ nor with any “social or
intellectual disabilities” whatsoever - his learned behaviour merely faithfully
reflected his environment from conception onwards. The blatantly obvious
deprivation, neglect and abuse to which Martin was subject began, as happens so
often today, from the moment of his conception, and his mother when pregnant
made no absolutely attempt to be responsible and consider her growing baby. She
continued to make money (“work” is not an appropriate term for pregnant
females) and lived in complete emotional denial, dealing with none of the
intense feelings that having another person growing inside her inevitably
brings to the surface. These feelings were therefore focused back at the
entirely vulnerable and defenceless baby, Martin. Carleen
did not grow emotionally nor develop physically and so stayed her usual shape
with just a football-like lump in her abdomen - this is generally not healthy
nor natural in any way and indicates how constrained the baby
is both physically and emotionally! It was no surprise that Martin was only 6
lbs at birth, light for a boy. See “Pregnancy, Birth & the Care of Babies
and Young Children”.
Carleen was so shut-off to her feelings and so
detached and unaware of her own body that she did not even know that she was in
labour until the final 2 hours – a not-uncommon scenario today. It is
inconceivable that a woman like Carleen would have
had such a short 2 hour labour despite her desperation to expel her child.
Anyone who knew anything about pregnancy would have recognised this. The
horrifying childhood violation of Martin (along the road to Port Arthur)
continued and his mother Carleen has
systematically lied about, misrepresented and totally distorted the facts of
her relationship with and care of her son when he was young. To begin with, she
claimed that Martin rejected breast feeding when it was her that did
this, another widespread claim by mothers who either do not grow physically and
emotionally into women or who avoid the intimacy of this vital part of
infant care because of the intense feelings the close relationship brings up in
themselves! So they blame the baby, putting their own
guilt onto their defenceless child while the father most often stands uselessly
by accepting the obvious lie without question.
All Martin needed was to be held by his father so that he was encouraged
to scream out his rage, pain and fear and so settle. Also he needed Maurice to
stand up like a man and ensure that his son was properly cared for, something
that his son’s later life (and his own) showed that he failed to do! Instead
Martin was just grossly overfed to keep him quiet (his so-called “unquenchable
appetite”), encouraging him into the emotional denial which finally went into
overload so many years later at Port Arthur with such tragic consequences.
Carleen claimed that Martin “rejected cuddles” and physical affection, something
that would only be true of a young baby if the experience of being close to
their mother was so horrifying, again her responsibility, not his. Babies can
feel how their mothers (and fathers) really feel underneath their outward
pretence and Martin would have keenly felt the tension and antagonism between
Maurice and Carleen which obviously existed all his
childhood. Another example of his mother’s desperate denial was how she
described Martin as “happy” when attached like a dog by a leash to the front
veranda of the house, no doubt for hours on end, at her selfish convenience. It
was she who was “happy” with this situation, not Martin, and this is a very
common way in which mothers take over their children’s space, putting onto them
what is really true of themselves, something which
naturally makes boys in particular furious. Martin’s rage manifested itself in
not untypical indirect “testing” behaviour which today would probably be
stupidly mislabelled as hyperactive or autistic.
However Martin’s fairly extreme response to his horrifying childhood was
such that clearly something much more serious had also been done to him as a
baby. He was undoubtedly shaken, choked, held under water, screamed at or
otherwise seriously terrified in some other way more than once, certainly by
his mother and perhaps also by his father, again not uncommon in Australia.
With appropriate, loving, gentle but firm intervention, Martin’s “misbehaviour”
could easily have been neutralised by his father Maurice. However it was
obvious that Maurice had huge unresolved issues of his own, was also living in
denial, he saw nothing “abnormal” in Martin yet his fathering style was
described as Intense” and “hands-on”. This strongly suggested a lack of
physical affection, severity and intimidation, something that would have made
Martin worse as Maurice was trying in vain to treat symptoms, not causes!
Martin’s destructive and antisocial behaviour continued and so he became
isolated, rejected and without friends. Like both his parents, he did not
mature (emotionally) nor did his language skills develop – nobody was listening
so what was the point! This was a dangerous scenario, to say the least. Even though his escalating burden of
repressed rage, pain and fear was apparent before he was a teenager, his
“devoted and vigilant” father Maurice,
despite his external pretence of care for his son, actually gave Martin the
airgun that began his disastrous involvement with firearms.
Martin’s
angry, rebellious, sullen behaviour as a teenager would no doubt have been
stupidly mislabelled as Oppositional Defiant Disorder or similar by today’s
psychiatric “experts”! Typical of so many useless Australian males, Martin
stoically refused to grow up. Where Martin was different was that he did not
try to run away from nor indirectly discharge his huge un-faced emotional
agenda in the usual ways - smoking, drinking, drug taking, recklessness,
playing loud music, being obsessed with war and violence (except for the
airgun), physical thuggery, the misuse of women especially sexually etc. The
now blessedly deceased “esteemed” (but not by his patients!) clinical
psychiatrist Eric Cunningham Dax, who saw Martin at
the age of 17 in February 1984, was predictably concerned for Martin’s parents,
not for the poor suffering patient. He found Martin “annoying” and “upsetting”
(was Dax ever!) because Martin would not concentrate
on Dax’s (silly) rigid questioning and was more
interested in details about his surroundings. Dax
predicted a bleak future for Martin’s parents but he completely failed to see
(or even look for) the key underlying family relationship dynamics that caused
Martin’s behaviour. He also commented that only “his (Martin’s) parents’
efforts prevented further deterioration” when they had in fact caused the
problem in the first place! Dax now knows how bleak
his own future has so deservedly become!
In 1987
Martin met the even more reclusive 54 year old heiress Helen Mary Elizabeth
Harvey and quickly formed a relationship with her which
was, to say the least, really twisted, destructive and dysfunctional, even an
example of “folie a deux”.
Isolated and insulated by her wealth and privilege, Helen Harvey and her mother
Hilza were in a deplorable state, living in filth and
squalor with dozens of equally deprived and neglected animals. Their house “Wibruna” was an unhygienic health hazard and the state of
the house and Helen and her mother’s health and level of care were a
condemnation and confirmation of the uncaring general disinterest and cruel
voyeurism of Australian society (and all wealthy societies globally). Helen’s
own father was clearly yet another cowardly, ineffectual, abdicated aged boy
obsessed with money, and the legacy he left was if anything worse than
Maurice’s. Helen was a typical example of a grossly indulged and lost aged girl
who had been given no love or care, no example and set no limits – and her
mother tragically “reaped what she sowed” with her daughter, a worse case of
what so many Australians do to their aged parents by dumping them in Age “Care”
facilities!
So now Martin had someone not unlike himself to “play with”, a worse
version of his own mother with even more deplorable standards of hygiene and
order and even more bizarre behaviour. Not surprisingly Martin continued to
deteriorate and he continually threatened violence, saying to whoever did the
1990 medical assessment for his Disability Pension that he’d like to go around
shooting people! This doctor also stated that Martin was subject to “child-like
impulses that he could neither control nor suppress” such as suddenly wrenching
the steering wheel of a moving car in which he was a passenger. Although this
was nonsense (Martin knew exactly what he was doing) that was what this
ignorant simpleton believed. Despite these ominous signs of vitally needed,
immediate intervention and the conclusion that Martin had “no ability to
understand the potentially fatal consequences of his actions” and was “unsafe
out of his parents’ control”, nothing tangible was done. Most of the time
Martin was allowed to roam uncontrolled as presumably his father was at work during the day.
In 1990 there was a long overdue, imposed outside intervention at “Wibruna”, Helen & her mother were hospitalised but Hilza died 2 months later in July. Despite the horror of
what was discovered, something tolerated by Martin for several years, and the
efforts to clean up the house and Helen’s personal effects and life, again only
the superficial symptoms were addressed. So Martin & Helen continued their
literally insane, profligate and dangerous lifestyle. The outcome was
inevitable but still no-one cared enough to actually do anything tangible. At
the farm in Copping, the odd couple no doubt busied themselves reducing the new
house to the same state as the old one, and it was patently obvious that
neither was fit and able to manage their own affairs or their own care. Martin
continued his habit of shooting at people without restraint, something he began
at 14, nearly 10 years previously!
In 1992 and
1993, Maurice began to be increasingly
despondent and to experience overwhelming sadness and depression. Maurice
needed to stop being a “quietly spoken” Mr Nice Guy, learn to express his
crippling burden of repressed outrage and pain, come to terms with his remorseless
guilt and look squarely at the
underlying causes of Martin’s behaviour. Instead, he foolishly consulted the
GP Bernard Mather who prescribed tri-cyclic anti-depressants (and anti-anxiety
drug Serepax) which predictably made him feel worse
and which he later used to commit suicide in August 1993 at the farm in
Copping. His family was left in total disarray with Martin subsequently having
no supervisory influence whatsoever with his father
gone! During this period, not long
before Maurice took his own life, Helen was herself killed in a highly
suspicious car accident probably caused by Martin.
Martin inherited the considerable estate but even in overseas travel he
was unable to find resolution of or satisfaction to his “inner demons”, his
deep seated feelings of inadequacy, insecurity, impotence and loneliness which
were all based in and a result of his relationships with both his parents.
Martin remained an outsider until the day of the massacre, trying to find
someone, anyone, who understood him, who really loved him and who would help
him find himself. What a tragedy for all involved!
Now hundreds if not thousands of people in the community knew about
Martin’s pathological behaviour, especially his misuse of firearms, over a
period of more than a decade and yet did nothing, just as others had done
nothing about the state of Helen, her mother and their house. A large number of
Tasmanian police were no doubt informed about and repeatedly alerted to
Martin’s indiscriminate shooting of his airgun at human targets by members of
the public over this period. Again, nothing of consequence was done, not even the
confiscation of the rifle! There were a number of health professionals who were
witnesses to the alarming danger signs and they also did nothing.
All these people, especially Martin’s parents, the police and health
professionals, were criminally negligent and are implicated accessories before
the fact to the subsequent mass murder! The useless media were and
still are blinded by their own unresolved emotional issues and cannot be
trusted to even remotely cover this story fairly, impartially and with insight.
They will
all receive a full recompense of a reward – see “Christianity & the
Churches” on the above web site!
Faithfully,
Michael Israel †
4) Complaints about Manly,
Exactly the
same problems and the same incompetence, incredible ignorance, selfishness,
laziness, game-playing and criminal child abuse exists in both Cairns and
Horsham Base Hospitals - most especially in the Emergency Departments and
Maternity/Special Care and Mental Health Units - as are set out below in the
report about East Wing, Manly Hospital, Sydney and in "Health &
Healing" on my web site:
www.geocities.com/michael_the_one
A fully detailed
complaint about Mary's experiences in both Emergency and the Mental Health Unit
is set out below.
Final Report - Mary Israel in East Wing, Manly
Hospital,
Mary was
unconditionally released into my care on the 20th May after enduring 11 days in
East Wing. The decision to do this was made, not because this was clinically
correct but was based on unprofessional expedience, due to the pressure that I
had brought to bear on a wide variety of people worldwide.
Predictably
there was no apology and no attempt to address the very serious issues of staff
incompetence, negligence, cruelty and violence that I had raised during Mary's
internment. The place is essentially staff-centred, not patient-centred, so
no-one is really interested in patients' comfort or needs or wellbeing.
No-one has
been or will be censured or reprimanded as was/is so clearly vital to effect any accountability or improvement in the disgraceful
situation there. Anecdotal evidence from several patients who have experienced
Cumberland Hospital Secure Unit strongly indicates a similar staff climate and
misbehaviour there also.
There of
course has been no acknowledgement of my own input, recommendations and
insights into the causes and cure of 'Mental Illness' because these are easily
provable, simple to implement and would cost about one thousandth of the
present obscene expenditure which has not cured
The truth is
that most psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses today are unable to be unbiased,
impartial, reasonable, appropriate and fair and most of their opinions and
'knowledge' are conjecture, speculation and idle comment. It is certainly
delusional for a profession to claim to be fit, able and trustable to identify,
describe and treat any illness or disorder when in over 200 years of modern
Psychiatry the "profession" has squandered trillions of dollars
treating over a half a billion patients worldwide but have not yet been able to
cure one single patient nor determine the root cause(s) of their
"mental" illness!! Psychiatry has not even been able to definitively
prove the actual existence of any "mental" illness or disorder, just
the arbitrary labelling of statistical groups of symptoms agreed to at their
conferences and meetings with a show of hands!
As to the
diagnosis that Mary showed an elevated mood and excessive energy and activity -
a sponge would be considered elevated and demonstrate more energy and activity
when compared to many doctors and staff!. In this
emotionally repressed and rigidly controlled country, people are only allowed
to freely express their feelings loudly at sporting venues (or watching games
on TV) or when intoxicated at some (anti-)social outing or gathering. Generally
speaking, Australians are terrified of honest, spontaneous expressions of
feelings. The diagnosis of "Elevation" also ignores
cultural and racial differences - Mediterranean people, for example are
clearly much more overtly emotional and passionate in their conversations as
are highly sensitive, creative and imaginative people.
Obviously
there is real danger that Psychiatry will try to control or limit behaviour and
beliefs to some lowest common denominator of "acceptability" and this
approach has already been widely abused, often illegally, by governments all
over the world to target activists and dissidents. This approach is equally true
of spiritual beliefs - one of the founders of modern psychiatry, Wilhelm Wundt,
described the concept of the soul to be unscientific and subsequent
psychiatrists like that stony, neurotic Sigmund Freud have described religion
as a "universal obsessional neurosis" and
any belief in GOD as "superstitious". How can these arrogant,
ignorant, intolerant, closed and dangerous fools be allowed to make judgements
about the health, reality or delusional nature of patients' religious
experiences when they have absolutely no qualifications, experience,
demonstrated competence or understanding to do so?! There is definitely a
covert agenda by some to eradicate religious beliefs entirely due to their own
lack of faith.
As to Mary
being "delusional" and "grandiose" by claiming to have
prophetic gifts, time will prove this or otherwise when everyone has an
opportunity to see what GOD HIMSELF does to the worst offenders on the staff,
all of whom have been warned (and in no way threatened).
The
Statement of Rights at the hospital is a sick and twisted joke, a carefully
scripted example of entirely theoretical public posturing designed to deceive
and make everyone but the patients feel safe and secure. Nothing has really
changed since "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's
Nest", there is just much more misuse of chemical/pharmacological
restraints, less real care and devotion to patients' daily needs and better
pretence!
People
should only ever be involuntarily regulated for the clearly demonstrated
patient's own protection or for the protection of others. This was not the case
with Mary, not even close, and the truth is that Mary was regulated for the
protection of child-abusers, frauds, scoundrels, hypocrites, wastrels, paedophiles,
sexual deviates etc etc whom she was rebuking openly,
people with grandiose delusions of being GOD's
Ministers!
Mary was
also given excessive and inappropriate medication and held in the MOST
restrictive environment - why not in Main Ward which is itself locked?
Another
question to ask after the farce that was the magistrates hearing - how long
does the process take to appeal to the Mental Health Review Tribunal? As
detailed in the Complaint to the Queensland Health Rights Commission attached
to the first e-mails, there it took 4 months while Mary experienced HELL and
had her health ruined by some of the most destructive people I have ever met.
They are still there today!
Although I
am not a Scientologist and disagree with some of their conclusions about
"normal child behaviour" in relation to sufferers of Hyperactivity
and ADHD, much of the information published by the affiliated Citizens
Commission on Human Rights International on/through their web site:
www.cchr.org.au
is worth looking at. I have requested and been
given their information pack which includes several magazines and a
For those of
you who are interested in a better insight into and understanding of your own
feelings, behaviour, attitudes. beliefs, needs and
relationships, I urge you to work slowly and carefully through "To Men or
Women Everywhere", also on my web site:
www.geocities.com/michael_the_one.
Finally all
those copied on this need to read "Christianity & the Churches"
on the web site and take the spiritual warning
in this both personally and seriously!
Faithfully,
Michael Israel †
Update 17th May
Last night I
was called by Mary who was understandably greatly distressed again. She had
been watching TV and turned on the mute during the ads. A male nurse then
grabbed the remote control out of her hands and turned off the mute saying that
he liked listening to the ads. This nasty, twisted, unfit, power-crazed control
freak has obviously forgotten a simple basic fact - the TV (and other unit
resources) are there for the patients, not for the
staff. Mary appropriately expressed her indignation and this was no doubt duly
written up in the notes as Mary having a relapse and needing more drugs!!
Mary spent
some time in the Main ward during the day which in contrast to the 'Safe' ward
is actually clean, offers much more privacy and personal space (vital for
healing and especially for vulnerable people in crisis), the patients there are
easier to relate to (helps with boredom as Mary is otherwise confined with only
seriously disturbed patients) and there are better opportunities for fresh air
and sunshine (also vital for healing). There are beds available in the Main
Ward and a good question to ask is, "Why has Mary not been moved?"
Answer: because of the vicious and spiteful behaviour of that delusional
criminal Denis Ladd who is focussing all his repressed FURY about women, a
legacy of his relationship with his own horrendous mother, at my wife!
Incensed at
her mistreatment, Mary has now, against my advice, decided to refuse to take
the Zeldox medication which is no real improvement on
the Olanzepine at all. Last night, as we found out to
our horror this morning, Mary was forcibly given an injection of Olanzepine instead because Zeldox
is not injectable. In the words of Adam, Charge Nurse
today, this was also done to encourage Mary to take Zeldox
voluntarily. So Mary is now being covertly given Olanzepine
again which was covertly introduced in the first place despite the great pain
this caused Mary and the clear severe contra-indications. Neither drug has
changed Mary's thoughts, beliefs or behaviour except to make her suffer more,
make her angrier and far less likely to cooperate.
For this we
pay taxes to fund ignorant, sadistic deviates with no real idea of what they
are doing and no scientific basis for their treatments, unlimited opportunities
to torment and experiment upon those in greatest need of real care!
Many of the
people who saw and spoke to Mary in the week preceding her regulation are
HORRIFIED at what is being done to her as they KNOW these draconian measures
are not necessary or even lawful.
IT IS NO
EXAGGERATION TO STATE THAT A COMBINATION OF THE MEDICAL & NURSING STAFFS'
INCOMPETENT, UNCARING, IMPROPER
Mary's
objections (and mine) to her continued mistreatment and medication are
unresolved because:
a) The
hospital refuse to change Mary's Consultant from Denis Ladd to a readily
available female, not because it is wrong, but because they are so insecure and
arrogant that they won't accept even valid requests, suggestions and
recommendations from outsiders, even Carers. The female consultants at the
hospital, notably Clinical Director Antonella
Ventura, are real traitors to their gender by their inaction on this important
aspect of Mary's care. There is no excuse for what is similar to the common
scenario today where mothers aid and abet fathers in their abuse of their
daughters!
b) Mary is
being given exactly the same dose of Zeldox and Olanzepine as a fit young adult man weighing perhaps 50%
more than she does. Why?, especially in view of her
prior history of susceptibility to medication effects. There is no scientific
justification whatsoever, just more of Ladd's cruelty and meddling.
I NEED Mary
to be transferred to Main Ward immediately, have a female Consultant appointed
to replace Denis Ladd immediately and start sensible discussions about what
Mary needs in terms of a release treatment program and follow-up. Above all I
need Mary treated with kindness, patience, respect and due diligence to which
she ALWAYS responds favourably with gratitude. All the problems that we have
encountered are attributable to staff's failure in reasonable duty of care.
Well, let me
WARN you all, and this in no way constitutes any
threat whatsoever from me, there IS a GOD in Heaven and you will all suffer enormously for this
scandalous outrage outrage masquerading as mental
health care. You will all be held accountable for what you do
to and don't do for Mary and other patients!
Faithfully,
Michael Israel †
To: The NSW Premier, Ministers for Health, Police & Justice
& the Management of Manly Hospital
Update 14/05/2008
I am
updating this following the farce that was the Court hearing at the unit
yesterday. The presiding magistrate, Jane Colver was
typical of so many 'modern' females, dedicated to living in total emotional
denial, shut-off to her own feelings and unaware of her true essence as a woman.
Because she is running away from the truth of her own awful childhood and
dreadful relationships with her father and mother, she rejects everything soft,
gentle, peaceful, patient, kind, aware, active, serving, graceful and beautiful
about herself and spends all her life competing with and taking over the space
of men, doing something (judging) that she clearly lacks the emotional and
spiritual capacity to do.
Women cannot
Judge because the womanly spirit is unconditionally loving as mothers, they
cannot discern the necessary basics issues of justice nor the conditional
shaping by fathers of behaviour through setting limits and rewarding the 'good'
and discouraging the 'bad'!!
So Colver was/is corrupt (at least morally if not legally) and
guilty of false pretences. Worse was that her elderly male colleague and
advisor sat and did and said nothing. This individual who was probably a
magistrate himself clearly suffers from serious problems with blood pressure
from eating but more so drinking down all his pain, anger and GUILT over
decades. No doubt he takes medication for this to suppress the symptoms instead
of just expressing how he feels. It is no surprise that the indulgence of blood
pressure medication is the most prescribed globally, unnecessarily costing
billions of dollars better spent on the poor and homeless.
By
predictably granting the order to extend Mary's regulation and enforced
medication for a further 2 weks, Jane Colver has effectively delivered Mary into the hands of
medical and nursing staff who:
- have
appalling standards of self-care and emotional awareness
- ignore,
treat with scant disregard and contempt and refuse to comply with sections of
the Mental Health Act which provide for full discussion and consultation with
myself, Mary's husband of 28 years and full-time Carer (paid a benefit by Centrelink to do so), about patient medical, psychiatric
and medication history and treatment options
- blatantly lied and falsely misrepresented to the court that
Mary had been psychotic and been diagnosed as suffering from Paranoid
Schizophrenia (see below)
-
deliberately failed to inform the court of the most informed, intensive,
previous psychiatric diagnosis made after 10 months of rigorous assessment by a
senior Queensland psychiatrist and Medical Officer for the state of Queensland,
Dianne Lang who in contrast was to some degree interested in the truth and not
totally blinded and compromised by her own biases or narrow and rigid
perspective of reality as are both Denis Ladd (Consultant) and Julie Mackie
(Registrar)
- were uninterested in the effects of previously trialled
medication nor in particular in the serious contra-indications of using Olanzepine which they summarily had immediately imposed
upon Mary without consultation or discussion. When they realised their mistake,
they then changed Mary onto another anti-psychotic drug Zeldox,
euphemistically described in court as "cross-titrating" to make it
appear as if this was a reasonable, 'scientific' process and not a cover up for
their mistake. Predictably they did not acknowledge their error nor apologise
and made this decision again without consultation or discussion. They are a
very dangerous law unto themselves, never admit they are wrong or don't know
what they are doing, never take responsibility for the disastrous consequences
of their clumsy, ill-considered interventions and are always trying to blame
others for their ignorance, incompetence, negligence and culpability.
It is useful
to bear in mind that in the ignominious, brutal 200 year history of the
Psychiatric profession, despite squandering hundreds of billions of dollars and
examining, assessing and treating hundreds of millions of patients, they have
failed to determine the cause nor cured the mental illness of
- ignored
Mary's and my own repeated requests for Mary to be only seen by a woman
Consultant, one of whom is readily available, for Mary's gender-appropriate,
highly sensitive, childhood sexual abuse issues
- will not
provide a clean, quiet, safe, comfortable, healthy, peaceful, respectful,
relaxed, unhassled, emotionally open and honest
environment for Mary whilst in 'care'
- have
already adversely affected Mary's health and well-being enormously, replacing
her active, healthy, varied, interesting, unusual, unselfish lifestyle with the
unhealthy, sedentary, boring, ordinary existence endured by staff and referred
to by them as 'normal' reality. They are also causing her a HUGE amount of
obvious additional pain, suffering and distress as the Olanzepine
resulted in immediate disastrous diarrhoea which has (predictably) caused
bleeding from the bowel, something about which I tried to tell Denis Ladd on
admission. This dangerous, destructive, sadistic deviate with significant
unresolved issues about females, was not interested, just put on minimal
pretence. Mary today is in AGONY, finally being given a major pain killer Endone after a nurse discovered her weeping in pain on the
toilet. She was denied any pain killers for the previous 24 hours despite her
obvious discomfort!
Alhough there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever of
Mary being depressed, that is exactly what Denis Ladd so stupidly alleged,
putting onto Mary what is actually true of himself in an obvious case of
transference. In fact patients in East Wing are simply unable to express ANY
feeling whatsoever for fear of being mislabelled as "elevated" or
"pressured" in speech (angry!) or "depressed" (sad, tired
and worn out by the lack of care).
Also Denis
Ladd alleged that I spat on a member of staff. The truth is that when I was
furious at what they were doing to and not doing for Mary, expressing this
loudly but not violently, Patricia Morey did exactly the opposite of what a
competent professional would do in these circumstances (and especially a woman)- stand back and try to settle the situation down. Morey
actually came right up close 'in my face' as I was trying to get my things
together to leave, provocatively invading my personal space (something she does
to all patients, all the time) and in the process apparently received some of
saliva that is always expelled when people are really angry. When I consider
the real violence that this CRIMINAL has done to vulnerable, defenceless
patients over the years, I am untroubled by what happened.
Despite all
this provocation to us both, I will as always leave the situation squarely in GOD's hands as I trust HIM to 'reward' those who so
shamefully mistreat us. Unlike them, we are completely non-violent.
Faithfully,
Michael Israel †
11th
May 2008
Appended
below is a Complaint to the Queensland Health Rights Commission in 2001 about
the mistreatment of Mary Israel, a 65 year old British National, long term
Australian resident and Aged Pensioner, in the mental health system then.
I also refer
you all to the document "Health & Healing" on my web site:
www.geocities.com/michael_the_one
especially the section on mental health and mental health
'professionals' (amateurs!).
All the same
ingredients that applied in
To be
specific:
1) Denis
Ladd (Consultant Psychiatrist) is like a robot, totally lacking in affect,
emotionally 'flat-line' and completely shut-off to and unaware of his own
feelings. He has dealt with NONE of his repressed emotional agenda nor faced
any of his obvious personal issues and so is unable to manage and is clearly
unfit to be in charge of anyone in emotional/mental crisis. In effect he is
just a very dangerous drug pusher who has no idea of the disastrous long term
effects of his violent, ignorant and misguided meddling - or he simply doesn't
care.
He is also
extraordinarily arrogant and refused to discuss with myself in any detail
Mary's clinical history even though I have been Mary's full time Carer for many
years with over 40 years experience with and intimate knowledge of Mary's case.
He certainly made no attempt to consult or consider my own knowledge of the
efficacy or otherwise of past medication that has been tried with Mary, the
most often disastrous effects of that medication and Mary's extreme sensitivity
to all drugs. My considered opinion as to what is now appropriate (5-10mg
Diazepam
I clearly
told him that it was totally
inappropriate and unprofessional to immediately medicate someone who is not a
danger to themselves or others just because they are (reasonably) upset and
critical of staff and the mental health system, especially when the patient is
supposed to be being observed for assessment - how can you assess someone's
usual emotional/mental state when they are drugged 'to the eye balls'.
Despite this
Ladd immediately and covertly prescribed 5 or 10mg of Olanzepine
twice a day, a drug that (together with Zucopenthixicol ?) had such a catastrophic effect on Mary's health and
well-being 7 years ago, as well 5mg of Valium. Olanzepine ruined her health and Mary is still trying 7
years later to lose the huge weight gain that she put on in only 3 months on
this dangerous and unhelpful substance. No psychotropic drug has ever changed
Mary's beliefs, thought patterns or feelings - and never will as there is
nothing basically wrong with these, they are based in
reality and in no way delusional.
I
consequently went straight to see Sean Graham, Deputy Director of Mental Health
Services who told me that the Mental Health Act now stipulates the involvement
of Carer's in treatment considerations. Despite this, the megalomaniac Denis
Ladd obviously does what he wants to do, not what is really in the interests of
patients' welfare. Following an amicable and open discussion, Sean Graham said
that he fully understood my concerns and promised to talk to Denis Ladd.
Mary has a
resting pulse of 40pm which is exceptionally low and admirable for someone who
does no artificial form of exercise. However she is understandably prone to low
blood pressure when (over)medicated. Unlike most of the nursing staff, Mary is
active and diligent in the natural course of a life unselfishly dedicated to
the needs of others. Together with her extreme sensitivity to all forms of
medication, Mary is now grossly over-sedated, unsettled on her feet and drowsy
with no visible beneficial effect whatsoever.
Typically
one of the cruel, twisted and sadistic female nurses who can't stand to see
anyone asleep peacefully, woke her up saying "You can't sleep now, Mary,
you won't be able to sleep tonight", a total fabrication to justify
disturbing someone who is involuntarily sedated!
2) This
brings me to the far more likely and sinister aspect of Denis Ladd's behaviour
and attitude. To begin with, at the Manly court, Luke Adamson, Legal Aid
solicitor, came up from the cells and categorically stated that Mary had asked
him to act on her behalf. I was suspicious as Mary ALWAYS asks me to give her
the necessary support in court and I later discovered in talking to Mary that
this was a deliberate lie - Mary had asked Adamson to talk to me and take my
instructions on her behalf.
The
underlying reason for this is the usual covert interference by spiteful,
corrupt police who are incensed by the truth that Mary (and I) have both spoken
and written about their nefarious activities, most notably and recently about
Sgt. Stephen Mawson at Narooma. In relation to Mary and her son Paul, Stephen
Mawson deliberately destroyed a sanctuary organised to give Mary and Paul a
break from threats of violence in Katoomba by police-protected drug dealers and
informants. He behaved like a small town sheriff telling them that
"Narooma is my town, you can only stay until Friday and if you are not
gone by then I will arrest you and throw you into prison".
He also
called Mary, a 65 year old woman on Age Pension, "scum" and accused
her of "scamming the churches". Does he ever scam the churches - he
is training to be a Baptist minister and has no spiritual experience, awareness
nor credentials whatsoever, not even to give an opinion.
See www.geocities.com/michael_the_one/christianity.
He bailed
Mary under draconian conditions which are well beyond his authority and legal
scope - these could and should have only ever been ordered by a magistrate -
and he told Mary that she could not attend any church in Narooma or she would
be arrested. He called her a "pest", a false prophet (women cannot be
prophets, if anything they are prophetesses), swore at her, said she was filled
with demons and preached at Mary while reading passages from his Bible at the
police station! This individual is a really violent religious 'fruitcake'
totally unfit to be left unsupervised in charge of a police station, anywhere.
He is also
in my considered opinion a real conman and fraud who
needs to deal with his own guilt and stop misusing his job as an easy vehicle
for offloading his huge unfaced guilt agenda onto
others. He presumes to talk with authority when he has not learned the first,
most basic lesson of being a mature adult - caring for his own body and spirit
and being slim, fit and active.
It is
certainly no indication of incipient paranoia to conclude that the police have
engineered Mary's remand to East Wing where the 'police stooge' psychiatrist
Denis Ladd can be relied upon to make a 'favourable' diagnosis with indecent
haste, immediately imposing repressive medication and placing Mary and I under
further torment and provocation. The man is a crook and there is no other
rational explanation to his actions.
3) With few
exceptions, the quality of nursing staff at East Wing is appallingly bad and in
effect there is no real nursing at all - you could train security guards to
give injections and hand out pills and the situation in East Wing would be
unchanged. Real nursing is the active, devoted, diligent, kind dedication to all the needs of patients - help with
making beds, personal care, washing and drying of clothing, family visits and
phone calls, listening to feelings etc etc.
In contrast
the female staff in particular at East Wing are incredibly lazy and do
virtually nothing except stand around like prison jailers looking important,
disapproving and menacing, constantly picking on patients, making it impossible
for them to relax, hoping to find fault, talking to them like errant children
and rarely being friendly, helpful, compassionate and friendly. Alternatively
they sit, eat and drink, play card games on the computer, gossip with one
another and to get them to actually DO anything is almost impossible. It is
'beneath' them to do any cleaning which is needed all the time or to put out
the unhygienic overflowing rubbish or to wipe the yard table outside which was
FILTHY and hadn't been cleaned for months. All these things Mary happily did
because she is a mature adult with high standards of self-care and respect.
It is
interesting to note that neither police nor mental health nurses treat or speak
to Mary as though she really has a mental illness, in accordance with the law
and anti-discrimination act provisions, yet they are desperate to have her
regulated because they are unable to maintain a professional detachment due to
Mary's criticisms of them being legitimate and valid. They have significant un-faced
personal issues and
unresolved emotional agendas of their own which preclude them
coping in a professional way with anyone who is in crisis, emotional, extremely
sensitive or deeply disturbed.
When I
visited yesterday, Mary and I tried to find somewhere to sit privately and
write some letters. There is NO appropriate space in 'Safe' Ward (most
unfortunately misnamed as far as patients are concerned!), there is never any
peace (the most important need for those in crisis)
and non-smokers are actively discriminated against.
As it was so
noisy and crowded in the TV room/lounge, we went out to the outside yard and a
few minutes later were asked by a female patient if we minded if she smoked.
Naturally we said that we did. I then suggested to the patient that she sit
somewhere away from us on a chair but she then sat in a chair on which Mary had
put her clothes to dry in the sun. Mary objected to smoking around her drying and
I suggested that the patient get her own chair.
At this
point the Nurse in charge, Patricia Morey (?) intervened saying that we had no
right to tell the patient that she couldn't smoke in the yard - we hadn't.
Morey, a really rude, nasty, destructive, spiteful, disruptive, guilty
game-player and trouble maker, then did what she does best - instead of
professionally resolving a simple situation, she inflamed it into a major
incident. After we made a number of comments about the stupidity, hypocrisy and
unfairness of allowing smoking in a hospital, a place of supposed healing,
Morey then went inside and encouraged
I then
loudly expressed my reasonable and fully justifiable outrage at the staff's
immaturity, misbehaviour, incompetence, laziness, impertinent
presumption, profound ignorance of mental health issues and deplorable
standards of personal care. When told by Morey to leave, I collected my
possessions and left without argument in disgust, telling them all what I
thought of their behaviour along the way. On Monday I was banned from the unit
indefinitely!
As far as
smoking is concerned, a Mental Health ward is the perfect place to insist that
patients give up smoking. Of course they will become angry, sad and edgy as the
feelings emerge that have been repressed with smoking
for years. The staff will have to
At worst
smokers could be allowed to smoke in the yard for, say, 15 minutes every hour
but only if they clean up after themselves.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In
conclusion, I need Mary taken off Olanzepine immediately, I need a woman
psychiatrist put on Mary's case to replace Denis Ladd, I need Mary to be only
given Diazepam at least until a full discussion takes place about her
medication history and I need her treated with respect, care and friendliness
to which Mary always responds
positively.
Faithfully,
Michael Israel †
5) Complaint
about Latrobe Regional Hospital
Wednesday, November 5, 2003 5:26 PM
From: "Michael Israel"
<[email protected]>
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected]
Re: Formal Complaint about my wife Mary
Israel's Mistreatment in April 2003 at the
As Mary
Israel's husband and carer I am outraged at what Mary endured during her
blessedly brief stay in the Flynn Unit and it is no exaggeration to claim that all her fundamental, entitled rights as
a patient (the designation "client" is really inane and contrived)
have been systematically ignored, treated with contempt and deliberately
trampled on by unit staff. In every sense of the phrase they are in total
breach of their duty of care.
The most serious incident occurred on 15th April 2003 and if the actual
circumstances of this were properly and honestly investigated, there would be
no other option than to terminate Ian, the Acting Unit Manager's employment
immediately. During the morning ward meeting, Mary and another patient
reasonably asked for the door to be left open as the room was very hot and
stuffy. A young, impertinent, unfit, grossly overweight female nurse,
clearly on a 'power trip' of her own, arbitrarily refused - also like so many
health professionals, she hates fresh air! Mary told her how she felt
about this childish abuse of power and left. She was then confronted
aggressively and highly provocatively by Ian backed up by 3 other large male
staff who all stood over and physically threatened
her, a non-violent 60 year old Christian woman. Ian behaved this way
despite all that Mary and I had carefully explained and exhaustively detailed
to him and other staff over several days beforehand in relation to her
vulnerability and extreme sensitivity about men in her personal space.
Mary was predictably shocked and instinctively reacted to this cowardly
intimidation by throwing a clip board that she was carrying at Ian in
self-defence.
Ian
gleefully took this opportunity to over-react violently, did not even bother to
ask or tell Mary to go to her room as is protocol and together these 3 depraved
deviates and cowardly sadists grabbed an unresisting Mary and dragged her into
HDU. They then held her for a number of minutes until a female staff
member came in and with the maximum possible humiliation bared Mary's behind in
front of the male staff and injected her with 10mg of Droperidol, again contrary to protocol.
This knocked Mary out for all that day and throughout the night as she is very
vulnerable to all forms of medication. Whilst holding her down, Ian
quietly and viciously said in Mary's ear, "This will teach you, you
Zionist Pig", a confirmation of what we had suspected of him. He is
with his ugly shaven head a true 'cupboard' Fascist who should be locked up for
the protection of decent, law-abiding people!
This
completely unnecessary, violent assault on Mary was clearly an unprovoked act
of sexual violation and a totally improper abuse of Ian's entrusted
authority. This criminal act worthy of imprisonment was perpetrated
entirely as a vindictive and vicious response to the truthful criticism and
comment Mary had earlier spoken to his female colleague. Ian also
provoked the incident and inflamed the situation, looking for any excuse to
assault and/or medicate Mary because he was incensed
at the care and treatment concessions that Mary's reasonable, idiosyncratic,
gender-appropriate needs had forced him to make, to get even in his tragic,
sick paranoiac way. Like another AUM Donald, Ian sees the unit as his own
domain and personal fiefdom, describes it as "My
unit" and bizarrely refers to the doctors as "my doctors", a
place where he can do what he likes.
It had
become obvious to me in the initial few days of Mary's blessedly brief stay
that Ian is very 'split' and able to change behaviour quite
schizophrenically. He has perfected the art of pretending to be 'nice'
and 'pleasant' and 'friendly' when it suits him, especially to visitors and
family members, but can be cruel, deceitful and physically violent, even
dangerous without warning or rationale. Ian has major unresolved personal
issues about females which he refuses to openly face and deal with in his
private life. This repressed rage he improperly introduces into his
professional work responsibilities with disastrous consequences for female
patients. He also fondles female staff members highly inappropriately in
a way which constitutes sexual harassment, something that I found most
offensive. Ian is completely unfit to be in charge of anyone, anytime,
ever.
Of course when I later presented at the unit around 9 am, I was greeted by Ian
at his unctuous best who said that Mary had assaulted him (HE had assaulted
her!) and was in the HDU. He made no mention of the involuntary
medication nor the use of physical force, lied and told me it was about
"fresh air" and refused to allow me to see Mary - he knew I would
hear the truth from her and be justly enraged - what a vicious cowardly cur and
thug he is! I have the greatest contempt for him and KNOW that in the
meantime GOD in HIS inimitable way will have made a public example of him for
the edification and instruction of ALL staff. Like so many corrupt police
today, he stupidly believes that he is untouchable and can do what he likes.
The document
appended below is equally relevant to and true of the situation in the Flynn
Unit and exactly the same basic ingredients apply.
I need
immediate action taken on this and replies should be sent to our E-mail
addresses - [email protected]
& [email protected]
or c/- Poste Restante, GPO,
Faithfully
Michael Israel †
6) E-mails to and about Mason Clinic –
Totara Unit,
Mason Clinic
Date: Thu,
30 May 2002 17:56:12 -0700 (PDT)
From:
"Michael Israel" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re
Mary Israel's Situation
To:
"Annette King" <[email protected]>, [email protected]
cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
To Annette
King & Janice Wilson
Further to
my E-mail of yesterday,
Mary and I are
furious and with ample justification. The reality of Mary's situation is
iniquitous and I am sure that neither you nor your numerous staff would
tolerate for one moment the extremely difficult, appalling conditions Mary is
supposed to accept and endure happily without complaint.
First I need to stress that Mary
has not been found to be of unsound mind nor convicted of any criminal offence.
She is therefore by law supposed to be treated as an innocent person, with real
respect and due regard for all her reasonable
physical, emotional and spiritual needs. Neither is Mary even remotely a danger
to herself nor anyone else - quite the contrary. However the same cannot be
said of some of the staff Mary has encountered at the Totara Unit of the Mason
Clinic. Let me air our frustrations:-
1)
Mary is only in this
situation because people in the court system and churches generally refuse to
respond in a decent, compassionate, caring, moral and lawful way to our
circumstances. The events at the Salvation Army 2 days ago are an excellent
example of the kind of game-playing and trouble-making that causes these
incidents. In this case a very guilty, twisted individual
called Jan Impy (who is posing as a woman of GOD
whilst effectively freeloading off CHRIST) caused the whole problem.
2)
Impy prolonged and obstructed
responding to an easy and simply met need of Mary's, refusing to do what she
knew she should have done. Why don't you assess her mental health??
The other factors of relevance are that so many people today are in total
emotional denial, are unable and unwilling to cope with their own or other
peoples' spontaneously expressed feelings, never want to look at themselves or
their own behaviour and finally, are seriously deluded about what actually
constitutes genuine health care, justice and Christianity. They therefore
refuse to deal with the written and spoken truth we speak and write and so
become spiteful, vindictive and violent. This is their problem, not Mary's or
mine, and it is highly improper and unlawful to make us suffer due to their
un-faced guilt, anger, pain and fears. This climate of emotional and
behavioural impropriety permeates all criminal justice and public mental health
systems and established churches worldwide today and the situation in Auckland
3)
This morning a
grossly obese Maori staff member Mary accurately described as a slob with
non-existent standards of self-care actually physically stood over and
threatened Mary and poked his fat finger in her face. He then pulled out the
table Mary was working on spilling all her things on the floor. This was done
in full view of 2 other male staff members, all of whom by now will no doubt
have conspired to concoct their untruthful version of what happened.
This behaviour is common in all institutions today, especially prisons
and mental health units. It should be noted that all fat people are violent, to
themselves and to others, without exception, although often this violence is
not physical assault but more subtle, distressing and dangerous psychological
violence. As a result of this incident, Mary was put in/on High Security (where
she no doubt will be even more put upon) just because she so reasonably
discharged her fully justified outrage in one the only non-violent ways a real
adult can - verbally and loudly!!!
The insane psychiatric system detains patients in an impossible
environment under an enormous emotional load and then provokes, disturbs and
distresses them, often intentionally, and then judges them to be psychiatrically
ill when they so reasonably react angrily. It is so annoying to hear mental
health professionals prattle on with such nonsense about patients being
“pressured”, "unsettled" or "disgruntled" when this often
describes their own behaviour and they wouldn't cope at all well under the same
treatment and conditions. The refuge of the hypocrite is such blind, unwavering
double standards, the obsession with finding the tiniest fault in others
("strain at a gnat") whilst overlooking, minimising or rationalising
serious improprieties or misbehaviour of their own ("swallow a
camel").
4)
Mary has been woken
up in the middle of the night by staff pretending to see that she was alright,
asked if she was OK and when she requested a warm drink she was told this
wasn't possible - a lie, that is exactly what they are there for!! They no
doubt then returned to the nurses’ station and made themselves a warm drink and
sat and talked. I need to make a crucial but obviously overlooked point - the
hospital system is there for the principal and overriding benefit of the
patients, not for the staff. Staff are there only to
serve, willingly, happily and graciously - if as is true of so many of them
they are so emotionally immature and crippled as to be unable or unwilling to
do this, they should never be allowed near vulnerable and defenceless people in
crisis. They will only cause more problems, conflict, aggravation and distress
- this is especially and invariably the casse with ourselves as we do not
tolerate this kind of self-centred behaviour without complaint.
5)
After being woken
up, Mary asked to have her light turned off which was done. However typically
some depraved deviate turned it back on a little later and later still someone
came in and then deliberately slammed Mary's door - does your staff do some of
their training at the police watch house? This is an invasion of a patient's
personal space in which she is supposed to feel safe, secure and undisturbed at
a time she is under greatest stress.
6)
It took a staff
nurse with very little to do 24 hours to dry 4 items of Mary's only set of
clothing. Also Mary has no underwear because the social worker who (kindly)
picked up the rest of her (wet) clothing from the police was not careful with
the details. She left Mary's underpants and singlet and her Gideons
Millenium New Testament and Psalms with a rainbow
fish on the cover and magnifier at the court cells. .
7)
It is impossible to
have a warm shower because the plumbing system has been designed and installed
by someone who has never had to use it. Even if the water is run for 5 full
minutes before using, it never gets nearly hot enough to be comfortable and
only lasts about 30 seconds anyway. One woman called Julie has been in the unit
for 9 weeks and has never had a proper, warm shower in the whole time!!! The
staff of course would again not tolerate this inexcusable situation for
themselves without having it fixed immediately (at taxpayers
expense) but as it is only patients, they just mutter the usual infuriating
platitudes and excuses and do nothing. This is violence.
8)
Every time Mary
actually manages to find some peace and rest, some under-utilised staff member
finds some excuse to disturb or wake her whether in her room or in the woman's
TV lounge. This is invariably a problem when staff have
so little to do to keep them productively occupied and is another example of
the type of real unrestrained violence which infests mental health institutions
today.
9)
When I rang this
morning, a really annoying, indulged little man called Malcolm (in charge!!!)
answered the phone. After I so reasonably told him what I thought of the unit
("Impossible") and of the decision to disadvantage Mary even further
by putting her in high security, he said the unit was not impossible (it isn't
for him, he is having a paid holiday at patients' expense) and tried to blame
Mary. In his impertinent words, it "would be nice to get an apology"
- yes, it would be nice – from them! <
In conclusion, I reiterate all my
comments, criticisms and observations made in the complaint to the Queensland
Health Rights Commission here in Brisbane
I need something tangible done
today to accommodate Mary's clearly expressed, reasonable needs. If your staff
do so, I can promise you all that Mary's stay at the Mason Clinic will be
pleasant for most and a positive growing and learning experience for all.”
Faithfully,
Michael Israel †
Date: Tue, 4
Jun 2002 19:46:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: "michael
Subject: Mary Israel's Continuing Harassment
& Mistreatment
To: "Annette King" <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected] CC: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], "Annette King"
<[email protected]>, [email protected]
Dr David Chaplow
Director of
Mental Health Mental
Health
Directorate Ministry of Health
Sonia Scott
Private Secretary/Advisor
(Health)
Office of Hon Annette King
Tel no: 471-9660
Fax no:495-8445
Mobile
Ms Sandy
Barry
District
Inspector (District Inspectors are there in regard to the maintenance and
protection of patient rights)
Date: Tue, 4
Jun 2002 16:05:12 -0700 (PDT)
To
Sandy Simpson
Monday, June
10, 2002 4:21 PM
To: Sandy
Simpson
I needed to
write to you following developments with my wife Mary’s situation over the last
day or so. First I need to emphasise that it is imperative that you read the
copy of the HRC complaint forwarded to by E-mail, especially the section on
medication and psychiatric diagnoses.
Yesterday
was not untypical for Mary and highlights exactly the problems encountered by
patients every single day in your clinic (and others like it all over the
world). Mary loaned to her neighbour Rebecca a cassette deck that Mary was
herself given to do some taping for our impending court case here in Brisbane
concerning our 12 year old daughter Hannah. After Rebecca played Rap music for
2 hours, Mary asked for the tape deck back. She rightly told Rebecca that she
was not supposed to have it anyway as she had the previous day broken the deck
and a tape given to Mary as well. A little later Paul, a staff nurse came in
and provocatively said to Mary, “You can’t have this” and arbitrarily took away
the cassette deck. This was totally unjustified but typical of Paul’s behaviour
and attitude.
Later still
when in the outside yard, another patient Reuben was playing rap music very
loudly for ages with no absolutely consideration for other patients. This form
of music is very debilitating to anyone who is sensitive and open-hearted and
is an indication of just how angry those attracted to it really are. The staff
as usual did nothing even though they have a responsibility for all patients. Mary finally asked Reuben
to turn down the volume which he refused to do. Mary then unplugged the deck,
Reuben turned it on again. Mary went to turn it off again and Reuben, who
(deceitfully) calls himself a Christian, hit her on the arm. Mary verbally
protested to Reuben at his violence and was then assaulted by her key carer
nurse Marianne who twisted her wrist. This was totally unnecessary and uncalled
for as Mary was not violent in any way and was not resisting.
Reuben who
had been violent was of course left entirely alone. Mary was then put in High
Security for the rest of the day, effectively punished unjustly for Reuben’s
inconsideration and violence and the staff’s abdication and simple
vindictiveness. Later Paul lied and said that Mary had hit Reuben so as to
justify their impropriety, a favourite ploy of corrupt police!!
Let me
dispel a few specious myths about Mary – she does not have an “elevated mood”.
Mary has a lovely, caring sensitive spirit and should be an inspiration for and
example to all mature women.
As GOD promises,
HE renews and restores the youthful spirits of all genuine Christians. Mary
also does not have “mood swings” – she actually feels a full range of all her feelings in an appropriate and
timely fashion. I re-emphasise exactly what I have repeatedly said in the past.
The problem in your clinic is not Mary but your staff. When Mary is listened
and responded to in a reasonable, diligent and caring way, there are no
difficulties. These only arise when staff refuse to do
what they are paid to do, when they play games with and provoke patients.
Therefore to even mention medication in relation to Mary is not only offensive
and repugnant, it is also clinically unfounded and highly improper.
What you
need to do, Sandy Simpson, is attend to your own serious administrative,
logistic and behavioural problems first, some of which we have highlighted to
you and your staff over the past 2 weeks, instead of expecting the patients to
carry your load and the rest of the staff’s, as usual. What you might consider
is prescribing medication for over 50% of your staff, stimulants to get them up
off their behinds and actually working, something to get them in touch with
their feelings and something else for the Attention Disorder Syndrome many so
obviously display!
What you need, Sandy Simpson,
is a reality check because you have been out of touch with the human condition
and spirit for far too long. No doubt if you lived in any of the Mediterranean
countries where people are far more expressive of how they feel, you would be
writing prescriptions for all and sundry – just so you won’t feel uncomfortable
and disturbed out of your own lacking-in-affect, smug complacency!!
Australians
are not a good or even acceptable
emotional role model for the rest of the world. Generally they are childish,
selfish, greedy, totally in denial, infamously obsessed with infantile pastimes
like their numerous ball sports of no importance or value and they shamefully
misuse excesses food, drink, drugs and trivial distractions to deny, repress and
avoid feeling their true emotions.
What I
suggest, Sandy Simpson, is that you look at you and stop projecting all your emotional inadequacies and
deficiencies onto patients, in particular my magnificent, decent, courageous
wife Mary who puts every single female employed at the Mason Clinic to shame.
Faithfully,
Michael Israel †
Subject: RE:
To Sandy Simpson
Date: Tue,
11 Jun 2002 11:56:54 +1200
Dear Mr
Thank you
for email.
You make
specific complaints with regard to Mary being assaulted by staff. This is a
serious allegation which we will investigate.
I have read
the previous email with regard to her treatment in
Yours
sincerely
Dr Sandy
Simpson
Clinical
Director and DAMHS
Regional
Forensic Psychiatry Service
Waitemata District Health Board
Private Bag
19986,
Avondale
Auckland,
Michael Israel †
Monday, June
17, 2002 6:20 PM
From: "michael
Subject:
Complaint to
Dr Grant Galpin
Consultant
Psychiatrist
Totara Unit Mason
Clinic
cc: "Denise Buchanan" <[email protected]>, "Mary Davies -
" <[email protected]>, “Clinical Director “
<[email protected]>, "Annette King -
Minister" <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], "Mary Davies – Charge
Nurse" <[email protected]>
I refer you
to the copy of a current complaint lodged with the Queensland Health Rights
Commission here in
To begin
with it is not unreasonable to conclude impropriety if not corruption by the
police and court in remanding Mary under these conditions in view of the actual
nature of the charge against her - trespassing! It is simply
not fair, not just and not reasonable nor is it necessary. Mary is effectively
disadvantaged and discriminated against yet again as a woman by a public mental
health service. She is forced to be in close proximity to violent males with
dubious standards of hygiene and modesty and who use coarse and vulgar language
as a matter of course. She is constantly disturbed by both patients and staff,
especially during the night, gets no peace, no privacy, no opportunity for
needed exercise and is shown no respect of her gender appropriate needs or
religious beliefs. The only patient phone is directly opposite the male’s
toilet which is minimally screened so that Mary is forced to see and hear the
male patients going to the toilet.
Neither Mary
nor I are at all pleased about this and the Area Health Board is clearly in
breach of its duty of care. Also the
Faithfully
Michael Israel †
Saturday,
June 22, 2002 4:25 PM
From: "michael
To: "Annette King"
<[email protected]>, [email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected]
cc: [email protected], "Diana
Lange" <[email protected]>, [email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected], "Paul Shelley"
<[email protected]>, [email protected]
Further to
my E-mail yesterday and several phone conversations with Mary, I have the
following to add to my observations on your public mental 'health' system (and
on mental health systems in general).
Mary was
forcibly medicated because she was deeply distressed and missing me (and
obviously so). Typical of modern mental health personnel, they misused drugs
and physical force instead of:-
1)
Talking and listening to Mary with compassion
and understanding for 30 minutes or so until she settled.
2)
Ringing me at the phone number they had ready
access to and asking the night staff to come up to my room and wake me so I
could settle Mary myself, something any child could do easily.
I am so angry that my wife has been physically violated yet again
simply because the public mental health services of this country
3)
If you can't cope with and manage people feeling
intense anger, pain and fear, why don't you get a job that is appropriate to
your shut-off, hardened, superficial emotional state and profound ignorance and
lack of appreciation of the human spirit – working with robots or computers,
for example but certainly well away from sensitive, vulnerable people in
emotional/behavioural (stupidly mislabelled 'mental') distress and crisis.
4)
To dispel a number of myths that Basil Bunting
has fabricated to justify his own impropriety:-
(a) Mary does not have trouble sleeping, she gets at least 6 hours a day.
(b) Mary does not have
"pressured" speech nor elevated moods, she actually feels - you remember feeling – just - so
long ago!!
(c) Mary's reactions to her surroundings, the
stress she is forced to bear daily, her perceptions about people and especially
so-called Christians and her relationship with GOD through CHRIST are all well
founded in reality, to be admired and learned from, not criticised and
misdiagnosed as indicative of any form of mental illness.
I am
heartily sick of arrogant, impertinent hypocrites with dubious standards of
self-care, emotional awareness, maturity and physical fitness presuming to
actually pass comment and express opinions about us. Sort out your own
considerable personal and professional problems first before you have any
legitimate basis to intrude into other people's lives!
I refer you
to “Health & Healing” on the internet web site:
www.geocities.com/michael_the_one
Every single
contact we are obliged to have with public and private health systems only
serves to confirm the truth and validity of all that we have written.
Faithfully,
Michael Israel †
From: "michael
To: "Annette King"
<[email protected]>, [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected]
cc: [email protected], "Diana
Lange" <[email protected]>, [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], "Paul Shelley"
<[email protected]>, [email protected]
Mental health professionals worldwide must attend conferences to
discuss ways to destablise, distress and harass patients because the behaviour of the
worst staff in psychiatric hospitals is exactly the same everywhere. You have
obviously chosen to ignore all that I sent you last week so the situation is
getting worse.
Toni, the staff charge nurse on duty for the last few afternoons
is determined to do everything she can to provoke, anger and upset Mary. She is
no doubt hoping that she can then misuse Mary's only too reasonable response as
an excuse to impose medication or worse, have Mary's detention extended. This
criminality is actually funded by tax-payers money. Toni is a really lazy,
twisted individual with major unresolved personal issues of her own bordering
on clinical schizophrenia. Two days ago she sat for five (5) hours reading a magazine
and when asked by Mary to heat up her wheat sack (kindly supplied by another
member of staff), she repeatedly said "Later, I'm busy!" and
continued to sit and read. Finally Mary reasonably told her at the top of her
voice exactly what she thought of Toni's behaviour - predictably Mary was then
penalised, locked down early and later spoken to like an errant child by Grier Balderstone. Toni was obviously incensed at this long
overdue exposure of her own violence and so spitefully decided to get back at Mary.
Yesterday Mary did some washing and asked Toni and/or Jane if she
could put this on the line outside or in the drier. They were just chatting to
one another but repeatedly asked Mary to come back later for over an hour. Then
while Mary was quietly having her meal alone, Toni barged into the room and put
the TV on without asking and turned the volume up very loud. Mary at first
asked Toni to turn it down and when Toni refused, Mary turned the TV off. Toni
turned it on, Mary turned it off and this continued several times until Mary
unplugged the TV and removed the aerial which Toni couldn't reach. Toni then
said to Mary in a threatening tone, "I wouldn't do that if I was you, you
are an old woman and I'll give you PRN (or similar)".
Toni is completely unfit and unsuitable to have power over anyone
in need as she has and will continue to misuse and abuse this. She is
emotionally immature, hates to serve, delights in playing psychological games
and is potentially dangerous to patients' welfare and health. The fact that she
is actually paid to do all this is an outrage! I need something done about this
today.”
“Further to my E-mail earlier today, I have spoken to Mary by
phone - she now has a migraine headache entirely due to the continuing refusal
of your nursing staff at the Totara Unit of the Mason Clinic to behave in a
helpful, diligent, active and caring way. Yet again a patient is forced to
carry their unresolved emotional agendas. Predictably the wheat sack that Mary
could have used to good effect for her headache has "disappeared"
(been stolen by Toni) after Mary last night left it on the office counter in
the vain hope one of the five grossly under-utilised, largely unoccupied and
very indulged nurses might eventually get around to heating it for 3 minutes in
the microwave. As if!!! Staff now say it can't be found, a lie, although one
admitted Mary couldn't have it because she (Mary) had "thrown it at a
nurse" - a total fabrication!
Now Mary has asked instead for Immigren medication even though the wheat sack would work
very effectively - doctors and nurses actively encourage patients to take drugs
rather than use the far more sensible and less harmful alternatives. If a staff
member needed Immigren, it would be organised
immediately but as the staff now have imagined a grievance against Mary simply
for telling them the truth, they will delay organising the pill as long as
possible. This is the behaviour of certifiable, lying, dangerous, cruel and
callous sadists and depraved deviates!!! And those who allow this without
immediate intervention are just as culpable.
Following Mary's altercation with
Toni yesterday, Toni later walked into another TV lounge where Mary was sitting
quietly by herself, turned the TV up to full volume and left taking the remote
control so that Mary could not turn the volume back down again. Later still
when Mary awoke as is her normal, healthy pattern after six or so hours of
sleep, she asked reasonably for her light to be turned on so she could read her
Bible and write some letters. She also asked nicely for a glass of milk. The
staff who had nothing whatsoever to do at the time
arbitrarily refused both requests muttering some nonsense about Mary suffering
the repercussions of what she had done. Mary then banged on the door until at
2.30am she was locked in High Security.
Yet again the staff have caused a
problem and then aggravated it, turning a simple request into a major crisis.
They actually get paid for doing this which legally is fraud and false
pretences. The nurse Jane said so stupidly "We don't do milk" yet
there were several litres of milk available which they simply didn't want to
give. Mary is 59 and very conscious of her needs for adequate Calcium in her
diet - she now in hospital does not get enough because the staff
are game-playing, mean gluttons and thieves who steal patients' food for
themselves!! Mary then tried to help herself and was prevented from doing this
so she threw the milk and sugar on the floor - how just!! This gave your contemptible staff something useful and active to do
for a change, cleaning which they hate to do.
Mary has tried to complain to
Mary Davies about the staff but Davies is completely useless and abdicated and
simply sides with the staff no matter what the facts of the situation. Davies
actually tried to blame Mary for her own staffs’ disgraceful behaviour and so
evade her paid responsibility for proper intervention. I have now been informed
that the shower system has been faulty for years, since the unit was first
built. No-one who really cared for patients could allow this totally
unsatisfactory situation to go on for more than a day or so and have the insane
system fixed immediately - why don't you all try it yourselves, it would do you
freeloaders living off the public purse the world of good!
There is never any peace in the
unit, the TV is constantly on during the day and the staff
are completely unaware and inconsiderate, if not deliberately intrusive
at night. This, I have to constantly remind myself is a hospital where patients
are supposed to be cared for gently, carefully, quietly, diligently and
unselfishly. Instead staff do exactly the opposite and
treat the place as if it is there for their misuse and enjoyment. All of you
are violent, either directly or by default and you ought to all be thoroughly
ashamed of yourselves. You and your staff have caused every single incident and
unpleasantness involving Mary and all this could have been, would have been
avoided if you simply did what you are (grossly) overpaid to do. I have the
most profound contempt for all of you.
You endlessly hold meetings,
conferences and with great arrogance theorise about the causes of mental
illnesses when the answers are right in front of your eyes. So many people who
suffer schizophrenia and paranoia have had mothers just like Toni (vindictive,
jealous, violent, changeable, guilty, hard, game-playing, trouble-making etc)
and fathers like so many of your male staff (useless, abdicated and emotionally
absent or rough and thuggish, who completely abdicated their responsibility to
stand up to their destructive wives or who were worse themselves). Growing up
in this horrendous environment causes all kinds of behavioural, perceptual and
emotional problems and putting patients into hospital will guarantee that they
get worse and be encouraged to become addicted to and dependent on your
dangerous drugs.
As a Christian Minister I do know
this - what you do to my wife, you do to me and what you do to me you do to HIM
WHO sent me. That is why Mary and I are non-violent because we know that all those who despitefully use us will be recompensed fully in HIS
good time.
I strongly suggest all recipients
of this letter take this as a serious, spiritual warning which in no way implies any threat.”
Faithfully,
Michael Israel †
Mary Israel's Unlawful Mistreatment in Waikato Hospital
Friday, June
21, 2002 6:55 PM -
From: "michael
To: "Annette King"
<[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
cc: [email protected], "Diana
Lange" <[email protected]>, [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], "Paul Shelley"
<[email protected]>, [email protected]
Re: My wife Mary Israel (previously known as Mary Shelley)
Confirming
my telephone conversation earlier today with Richard, Charge Nurse at Ward 36,
Henry Bennett Centre, Waikato Hospital, this E-mail will be forwarded through
him onto Clive Bensemen (Clinical Director), Basil
Bunting (Consultant Psychiatrist), Lucy Slutskaya
(Psychiatrist) and Lesley MacDonald (In-Patient Operations Co-ordinator) as a
matter of urgency. I need their individual confirmations of receipt ASAP.
They also
need to realise that exactly the same issues apply today with Mary's detention
in the Henry Bennett Centre in Hamilton as existed for Mary in the Totara Unit
at the Mason Clinic in Auckland about a week ago and those covered
comprehensively in the complaint lodged with the Health Rights Commission here
in Brisbane, a copy of which can be accessed on the internet web page:
www.geocities.com/michael_the_one/healthandhealing.
I have also
set out below relevant excerpts from E-mails sent by myself to the Ministers
Office during Mary’s recent confinement in the Mason Clinic.
Mary has yet
again on Tuesday 18th June been unnecessarily detained, this time under Section
13 of the Mental Health Act, in a gross misuse and abuse of power motivated as
usual by corrupt police with their blatant lies and misinformation. The
circumstances are very similar to what happened in
However in
this instance the mental 'health' system has excelled itself and exposed some
of the worst excesses we have experienced so far. Even though clearly not a
danger to herself or anyone else, upon admission Mary was kept in a locked room
for 12 hours with only sporadic and arbitrary access to the toilet.
Although she
had as a Christian told the truth about some staff misbehaviour, Mary is
entitled to her opinions under law and was in no way physically disruptive.
Despite
this, as a vindictive and unlawful act Mary was forcibly medicated with Chlompixel (?) which completely "knocked her out"
for 3 days. During this time she mainly slept being unable to stay awake. Not
only is this outrageous enough but Mary was physically held down by 4 female
and 2 male staff members (including Marie Weeby,
Shane and an enormous Maori Rangi) to effect the
injection even though she was not resisting nor struggling. As Mary describes
so many of the staff, they are a group of unrestrained obese thugs constantly
looking for any excuse to assault patients to off-load their own perilous
burden of un-faced anger, pain and guilt.
As with the
police and prisons, everyone knows what really happens but no-one cares enough
to do anything about it except true Christian Ministers.
Subsequently
Mary has been offered Respiradone but she declined
based on her religious beliefs, a genuine concern for her own health and
well-being, a healthy suspicion of their motives and competence and an informed
knowledge of the pharmacology of this particular medication. That Chlopixel (?) or Respiradone
could be (mis)used on a casual 'ad hoc' basis is a
good indication of how 'lost' these health professionals are!!!
During the
next 3 days Mary repeatedly asked various members of staff to ring me and
inform me what had happened to no avail. They finally belatedly rung our son
Paul in
Mary has also asked repeatedly to
see a Minister/Chaplain without success as well as to have someone read her
Bible to her as she is without her small magnifier and is not permitted access
to her Bible anyway.
I need something done about this
disgraceful situation today. In particular there is no good or valid reason to
detain Mary in the Henry Bennett Centre further (or at all). Also please put on
your computer system that police are not to be permitted to misuse the mental
health act spuriously to remove Mary as an embarrassment to suit themselves and
their equally cohorts in the churches and politics.
Faithfully,
Michael Israel †
7) Complaint to the
(Began 28th February and finished
Complainants - Michael
& Mary Israel
E-mail address - [email protected]
We wish to lodge a formal complaint about the
quality of health services provided to Mary and to myself as her husband by
staff of the Whitlock Unit,
On being remanded for two (2) days for a
psychiatric assessment by a Brisbane magistrate on the 9th October 2000, Mary
was regulated two (2) days later and detained in the Whitlock unit for nearly 5
months until her transfer to TPCH by order of the Mental Health Tribunal on the
2nd March 2001 (see (p) below). Mary spent a further five and a half months
there until her final discharge (but continued regulation) early in August
2001. During this ten month period there has been a marked neglect and breach
of duty of care towards us both and a violation of our rights as specified in
both hospitals' information publications.
To be specific-
(a) Mary was summarily diagnosed and immediately
medicated with Zuclopenthixol only two short days
after her admission to the JOMH without nearly sufficient observation time for
a proper, informed, clinical assessment. (see note (i)
(b) Mary was forcibly injected suddenly, without
warning, discussion or consultation in clear breach of her rights. (see note (ii))
(c) Staff completely failed to heed Mary's
repeatedly expressed concerns about the infection in her posterior caused by
this injection and actually illegally assaulted her instead of effecting the
next injection into the other side of her body. (see
note (iii))
(d) Staff totally failed to respect Mary’s personal
needs and dignity and medication was effected, we believe deliberately, in a
highly provocative manner, in the most invasive way, by depo
injection, instead of orally. ((ii) & (iii))
(e) All psychiatrists at the JOMH demonstrated a
closed, suspicious and insular attitude towards me as Mary's husband and I was
deliberately not consulted nor asked to provide any information about Mary's
most unusual, even unique situation in clear breach of my own rights. This
meant that a great deal of the relevant facts of Mary's prior
medical history were simply ignored and vital details of our lifestyle
and beliefs were distorted or misrepresented. (see
(iv))
(f) Patients’ rights and beliefs are entirely
theoretical and treated with scant regard and Mary’s were trampled upon
repeatedly without apology or excuse. For example, there was virtually no
explanation, discussion or consultation with Mary or myself
in relation to her situation at the JOMH for weeks and weeks after her
admission and she was not even told who her primary “care-giver” was until she
had been there well over a month.
All JOMH psychiatrists (Fama,
Cooksley, Kar, Van der Hoef & Schramm) as well
as Peter Yellowlees (Royal Brisbane Hospital) failed
to be fair, balanced, thorough, open and diligent in gathering sufficient
information about Mary's case history. They refused to listen to our side, were
uninterested in previous psychiatric assessments more rigorous than their own
and their subsequent diagnoses were as a consequence highly dubious if not
completely false. Their opinions also markedly contrast with the subsequent
diagnoses by Dr Diana Lange at TPCH in her numerous submissions to the PRT.
The worst example of the above was the
"eleventh hour" psychiatric assessment by Peter Yellowlees
which was organised by the Mental Health Tribunal for
what we rightly see as highly suspect reasons. Yellowlees
was summarily imposed upon Mary in a highly insensitive manner and he invaded
Mary's space with blatant disregard for her well known and clearly stipulated
gender appropriate needs for a female psychiatrist. That this initiative came
from the MHT is especially disgraceful. Yellowlees'
approach and attitude was hostile, adversarial, biased and totally
unprofessional - he actually became quite incensed when Mary gently but firmly
refused to talk to him. Far from respecting her wishes and appreciating her
most reasonable position, Yellowlees became
belligerent and demanding and tried in every way possible to manipulate and
intimidate Mary into prolonging the conversation.
By copy of this to the Royal Australia and New
Zealand College of Psychiatrists we need this to be taken as a formal complaint
against Yellowlees. ((iv)
& (v))
(g) Both medical and nursing staff in both
institutions regularly introduce all their own personal issues, biases and
unresolved emotional agendas into their professional responsibilities with
disastrous diagnostic distortions and other serious implications for the
patients' assessment and treatment, in this case my wife's. Many staff are seriously lacking in emotional maturity, self-awareness
and relevant experience and most aggressively deny their own feelings which
makes it difficult, if not impossible for them to empathise
with, relate to, understand and help patients. Staff generally look down on and
see themselves as entirely separate from patients, as having no unresolved
issues or problems themselves (a completely unrealistic and false perspective)
and their overall approach is guarded, defensive, contrived and artificial -
this fosters an unhealthy atmosphere of mistrust and unreality. (vi)
(h) Staff at JOMH failed to provide a safe
environment for Mary by any sensible standards and she was constantly harassed
by, intruded upon and assaulted by other patients and staff. (vii)
(i) Mary's physical,
emotional and spiritual health and well-being were compromised enormously
during her nearly five months in the JOMH and this is directly attributable to
the impossible environment in which she was obliged to live, the inappropriate
and excessive medication and the staff's uncaring disinterest, negligence,
laziness and impropriety. (viii)
(j) Staff and management at both hospitals
steadfastly refused to respond in an open and professional manner to our
reasonable requests, legitimate concerns, constructive criticisms and other informed
comment about the facilities and staff behaviour. Peter
Fama and his successor Bill Kingswell
at JOMH behaved in the most arrogant and high-handed manner and stated
categorically that they did not read nor reply to anything they did not want to
deal with (see (x) and Kingswell's letter to me dated
Purely in response to their own guilt staff at both
the Whitlock Unit at JOMH and the Medium Secure facility at TPCH have totally
misrepresented the nature, content and style of our well-founded complaints,
all of which have been systematically ignored, trivialised
or even dismissed as indicative of mental illness. This was then used as an
excuse to legitimise their own
misuse of and over-reaction with Mary’s medication. (x)
During Mary's stay in Medium Secure, there were
five (5) serious incidents which caused both of us considerable distress and
aggravation - see (ix) for details of these. Despite our considerable efforts
these remain completely unresolved to this day and we need to make specific
formal complaints about two of the nurses (Sean Pitcher & Ayesha), the
Nursing Manager (Russell Williamson), Mental Health Unit Administrator (Kathy Arandt) and Mental Health Director (John Bowles). (ix)
(k) When patients complain about decisions or behaviour that are inconsistent,
arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, unjust, preferential, discriminatory or
obstructive, the staff typically fabricate implausible or untruthful
explanations and excuses. If patients reasonably persist, the staff when
cornered then get angry and there are often recriminations as a result, the
most common being an increase in medication. There is simply no protection nor
adequate recourse for patients within the system and staff often lie about what
patients say or do to escape accountability for their own actions. Patients who
reasonably protest, complain or put forward some genuine grievance will often
be falsely described as abusive. (x)
(l) Mary & I found it very difficult to organise a second opinion at the JOMH and in at least one
case this was aggressively discouraged by a member of staff - Andrew Neilsen, a psychiatric registrar now “working” at Ipswich
Hospital categorically said to Mary that "You'll never get a second
opinion!". ((xi))
(m) Staff in the JOMH deliberately exposed Mary to
their own and patients’ tobacco smoke, fully aware that this is damaging to her
health. (xii)
(n) The level of support and assistance by the
numerous other staff responsible for Mary's non-clinical needs (liaison with
DYFCC for contact with her daughter Hannah, residential status, clothing,
toiletries, bank withdrawals, contact with Centrelink etc) at JOMH was grossly
inadequate, often rude, provocative, begrudging and unsympathetic and cost us
thousands of dollars in lost benefit entitlements. (xiii)
(o) There is an enormous discrepancy between the
proudly proclaimed, public posturing in the Mission Statement and Rights &
Responsibilities of the JOMH Patient Orientation booklet and in the TPCH's framed Mission Statement so conspicuously displayed
on their walls on the one hand and the private reality of the staffs' actual behaviour and of the wards themselves on the other.
In the case of TPCH, their claimed "Vision is
to operate at the leading edge of care, practice and service and to extend
these boundaries for the benefit of patients through service, education and
research." It is "vitally important to let us know if the hospital is
not measuring up and in this event please call the District Manager on
extension 8224".
Even if this actually meant something, it is not
even remotely true but at least these grandiose statements provided us with a
source of some amusement. (xiv)
(p) Mary endured a grossly unfair and unreasonable
time in JOMH waiting for her review by the Mental Health Tribunal which did not
take place until
(q) It was an outrage, totally disproportionate to
the reality of what Mary was supposed to have actually done and a total misuse
and abuse of the Mental Health Act to contain Mary under the harsh conditions
at the JOMH in the first place, largely to remove her as a political
embarrassment. There were more humane alternative facilities available such as
the Medium Secure Unit at TPCH. (xvi)
(r) Staff completely failed in their duty of care
in relation to the proper supervision and care of patients and in maintaining
an appropriate, safe, fair, properly managed environment for all patients. (xvii)
(s) In general nursing staff at both hospitals are
considerably less than diligent, active and caring and many really hate
serving. They isolate themselves in the "fish bowl" or at meetings
far too much, their approach to work is largely sedentary, verbal and cerebral
(rather than being involved doing things for patients) and they actually
dislike physical exercise and avoid going outdoors.(xviii)
(t) Staff at both hospitals are
almost without exception unhealthy physically, emotionally and spiritually
themselves, many are overweight and addicted to tobacco and other drugs and
most are scandalously unaware of their own feelings and ignorant of how to deal
with them maturely. This however is the single most important prerequisite for
anyone working with or looking after psychiatric patients. As a consequence
they aggressively discourage, are uncomfortable with and have no idea how to
manage other peoples' feelings of rage, pain, fear and guilt. (see (xix))
(u) In both hospitals there is an undue, obsessive
and unhealthy reliance on drugs alone to manage emotional and behavioural ("mental") disorders of all kinds and
virtually no emphasis is placed on the most important of patients' needs -
intensive individual and group counselling and
therapy. As a result there is no real healing and no possibility whatsoever of
a genuine cure, just the ongoing, continual, aggressive suppression and control
of symptoms.
Medication is also widely misused as a tool of
oppression and intimidation and for the selfish convenience, laziness and increasing
disinterest of staff - to keep patients quiet, compliant and sedated and stop
them expressing any of their feelings or voicing any criticisms of the medical
or nursing staff, hospital management or ward conditions.((xix)
Despite the preoccupation with and absurd emphasis
placed upon medication, there were seven or eight serious mistakes made with
this with Mary over a period of three months. It was missed completely twice,
Mary was given someone else's medication twice and she was given two times, two
and a half times and ten times the prescribed dosage on three other occasions.
(v) The present level of grievance support
available to patients in general and to my wife in particular from Official
Visitors in both institutions is pathetically poor, in fact non-existent. My
wife and I over 5 months repeatedly left notes in the OV's
box at Medium Secure requesting to see an OV to no avail. The OV box at John
Oxley was/is filled with rubbish and dust and the female OV Mary managed to see
once there was totally useless.
(w) All the health professionals involved and
especially senior management of the JOMH are determined to not allow the open
exposure and publicity of the appalling standard of care and conditions there,
especially for women. They are so paranoid and defensive about this that they
now insist on closely watching and monitoring our conversation when Mary and I
visit one of their patients, Nino Volpe, as part of our
(x) The overall approach taken to care ignores a
fundamental tenet of human behaviour and a basic
spiritual reality - men and women are physically different, emotionally
different and spiritually different - and thank GOD this is so! Those people
who believe otherwise have never, ever really looked inside themselves and the
various psychological theories they hold so dear are simply fashionable,
transitory, superficial, confusing nonsense. When misused in treating
vulnerable, defenceless patients already in crisis
this academic foolishness is both destructive and dangerous. To be specific,
female staff cannot possibly know or understand what it is like to be a man,
how men feel and why they feel the ways they do, and conversely male staff have
little or no idea what female patients feel and why.
(y) There is no doubt that there were obvious
political pressures allowed to adversely impact upon and influence Mary's
treatment. These had nothing whatsoever to do with the clinical reality of her
mental health or the true nature of the charges against her. This covert
interference compromised her needs, health and welfare significantly and this
was neither proper or necessary (see my letter to
Diana Lange dated
(z) The team approach taken at the JOMH (and
elsewhere in the Mental Health system), like the committee approach, produces a
"diluted", averaged level of care and decision making of the lowest
common denominator. This allows staff to avoid making the simplest decisions
and taking individual responsibility for their actions and delays the easiest
of requests. There is clearly an absence of coordinated leadership and
accountability between medical and nursing staff at both the JOMH and TPCH.
Conclusion
Management and staff of both the
JOMH and TPCH, the Director of Mental Health and the Mental Health Tribunal all
failed to discharge their responsibilities in relation to Mary's care and
towards me in a number of important, specific ways. They are in clear breach of
their duty of care, did not provide a timely, appropriate, safe,
secure health service for my wife and her health in fact deteriorated rapidly
during her stay in the JOMH until her move to TPCH in March 2001. Mary's health
only began to improve from that point due to my own daily involvement and
energetic intervention.
Expected
Outcomes
(1) A heart-felt, detailed apology in writing from
administration, medical and nursing management of the Wolston
Park/JOMH and TPCH.
(2) A specific response as to how both institutions
will improve facilities, conditions and staff behaviour
to cater for women’s gender-appropriate needs.
(3) $100,000 in
compensation for Mary from
(4) A review by all psychiatrists of their
diagnostic conclusions and recommendations in relation to Mary taking into
account the crucial factual evidence about our position and Mary’s behaviour that they so unprofessionally chose to ignore. (see notes on psychiatric reports)
(5) A total upgrade of staff training to ensure a
genuine commitment to their own health, emotional growth and behavioural understanding - if you cannot care for
yourself, you most certainly cannot care for anyone else.
(6) The immediate dismissal of all senior medical
and nursing staff at the JOMH (notably Kingswell and
John Quin (ADON) as well as Peter Fama
as a consultant) and replacement of John Bowles (Director - MHU) and Kathy Arandt at TPCH. We also need the dismissal of Margaret Hoy,
a particularly nasty and vicious nurse at the JOMH as well as Russell
Williamson (Nursing Manager - Medium Secure) and nurses Sean Pitcher and Ayesha
at TPCH. This will considerably improve overall staff attitude, approach and
conduct. (see notes (9) below).
(7) $2,000 compensation from TPCH - $1,500 for
falsely trying to extort $100 in damages from myself and for the distress the
locker incident caused us and $600 for the meals I had to provide Mary for 5
weeks while she was still an in-patient, $15 per day for 40 days (see notes (9)
below).
(8) A complete investigation into and review of the
widespread misuse of medication within the public mental health system, what
drugs are used, in what combinations and the dosages prescribed. (see Notes on Psychiatric Reports)
(9) Punitive damages of $100,000 for totally
failing in their duty of care towards Mary (and myself)
in so many different aspects as detailed below. This figure of course is
grossly inadequate when the underlying corruption and misuse and abuse of
entrusted power is taken into account but we are
trying to be realistic.
(10) A full, detailed acknowledgment of this
complaint and a genuine consideration of all the issues raised.
Michael & Mary Israel †
Stated Rights
& Entitlements – Department of Health Publications
-The best health care in a safe place, feeling
welcome and accepted
-Considerate care which respects personal needs and
dignity at all times
-Personal privacy
-Confidential treatment of personal health
information
-Cultural, spiritual and religious beliefs
respected
-Treated without discrimination
-Access to clinical files
-Special dietary needs met
-Be fully informed of and discuss your treatment
-Close family has a right to be consulted and
involved in patient's treatment decisions
-Participate in decisions regarding care and
treatment
-Be given an appointment to see the Official
Visitor
-Have
someone of your choice with you whenever possible when you are discussing your
treatment with your psychiatrist or doctor
-Make
complaints about any aspect of your treatment that you are not happy with and
have your complaint fairly treated promptly without negative consequences.
It is fair
and no exaggeration to say that not one of these was respected,
upheld and complied with.
Notes
(i) Mary had at that point
spoken to the psychiatric consultant Prabal Kar and registrar Anna Cooksley
very briefly, for about ten minutes and thirty minutes respectively. There was no compelling urgency nor clear indication to medicate Mary
as she was clearly not in any disturbed or difficult space, just moderately
distressed and understandably angered by her position. Mary in no way posed a
danger to herself or others and without doubt she was the least violent person
in the entire JOMH, staff and patients included, when violence in its most
comprehensive terms is considered. Mary’s well-founded criticisms of staff and
of the draconian conditions in the unit were all expressed appropriately and
non-violently, verbally or in writing. We rightly claim that medication was
administered in an arbitrary, irresponsible and vindictive way, a form of
chemical censorship and intimidation to stop Mary confronting staff with the
truth about their own inappropriate behaviour and
their inadequate, reluctant response to her simple needs and legitimate
complaints.
It was also no coincidence that the clinical
determination was made with indecent haste before Mary was due back before the
Court and those involved were determined to prevent Mary appearing again in
public in her clearly normal, rational and settled state. Exactly the same
illegal ploy was used 17 years ago when Bjelke-Petersen had his Special Branch
thugs pick Mary up when visiting me at Boggo Road
Prison, take her to a corrupt psychiatrist at one hospital who immediately
medicated her with Largactyl and then drive her to
the Winston Noble Unit at TPCH where the staff had not seen her undrugged. She was regulated the next day but escaped 6
weeks later to NSW where an examining psychiatrist concluded there was
absolutely nothing wrong with her.
The peremptory JOMH diagnosis was also completed at
exactly the same time as the Dutton Park police had been told by senior police
to arrest me and it would be childishly naive to not realise
that a great deal of improper discussions were covertly taking place between
people who had no lawful reason to do so, especially Peter Beattie and Anna
Bligh.
(ii) Anna Cooksley simply
arrived in Mary’s area, took her to her room and announced that she (Mary) had
paranoid schizophrenia and needed to be medicated immediately - it was
fortunate that Mary was sitting down! Six (6) staff nurses, 2 of whom were
males, stood menacingly outside and Cooksley’s behaviour, based as it clearly was on her own guilt, was
inexcusable, improper and highly inflammatory. Mary registered her reasonable
protest, objected to being touched by any male and then reluctantly accepted
the Zuclopenthixol injection by a female nurse.
(iii) As a consequence of this injection, Mary not
surprisingly subsequently developed a severe infection in that area which was
examined by eleven different female nurses - she also ran a high temperature as
a result. Two weeks later when due for another injection, Mary reasonably
protested when the staff member went to inject her in the same side into the
infected area which was very painful - Mary could only by then sit down with
difficulty. Rather than being sensible, caring and careful, the staff
over-reacted savagely and Mary was physically held down and injected in her
posterior by four females and two male nurses, one of whom was Alex Bryce, a
particularly nasty, twisted and violent deviate. She was then put into
seclusion.
This physical assault, typical of the kind of gross
misuse and abuse of power by staff in JOMH, was totally uncalled for - Mary
only passively resisted. It was medically indefensible and also unlawful,
cruel, insensitive and highly embarrassing with deliberate disregard for Mary’s
clearly expressed, gender appropriate needs and stipulated religious beliefs,
again in clear breach of her rights. This experience was most distressing to us
both and motivated us to write separately to staff expressing our most
reasonable outrage and disgust which itself caused a great deal of fully
avoidable, future conflict, antagonism and hostility.
The staff caused the entire situation and the staff
are fully responsible for what happened and for our (in stark contrast)
non-violent response. This incident was also deliberately misrepresented as a
blank refusal by Mary to take medication, an a posteriori justification not
unlike the police charging prisoners with resisting after they (the police)
have assaulted them. Mary did not initially resist being medicated even though
she was greatly distressed with this invasion of her personal space.Mary‘s medication was arbitrarily changed (again
summarily and without explanation) to orally administered Olanzapine
several weeks later.
(iv) I was deliberately not consulted nor involved
at all despite the fact that I am Mary’s husband with an in-depth knowledge of
Mary’s complex and highly contentious health history over a period in excess of
30 years and that our Christian marriage is a deeply devoted, lifetime,
faithful commitment of central importance and value to us both. This was not a
mere oversight as Mary and I made our wishes abundantly clear - Mary even
signed a sworn, witnessed authority in my favour to
handle her affairs and act on her behalf which was (and still is) on her
hospital file. Rather all staff made a conscious choice to exclude me in ways
that can only be seen as highly insensitive, unprofessional and improper. Prabal Kar actually refused to
discuss Mary's case with me when he and I (providentially) found ourselves
face-to-face at the AGCC, something he had no lawful or moral right to do and
in breach of his patient's clear instructions and expressed wishes. He should
never have been appointed to Mary's case in the first place as she repeatedly
stressed that she needed a female consultant and registrar
My own position in relation to the important issue
of medication has also been grossly distorted when in fact it was my
recommendation over the phone to Mary that she voluntarily take
her medication orally. We have no objection to the short and medium term use of
medication providing it is appropriate and genuinely necessary, the dosage
level is not excessive, the side effects are not worse than the condition and
that it is administered in a sensitive and professional way. It is also
relevant to note that I cared for Mary alone for eight years, 24 hours a day, 7
days a week, while she went through a deeply distressing, life-threatening
health crisis In New Zealand some years ago after our daughter Hannah was
illegally taken from us. There is not a doctor or nurse in the JOMH (nor
anywhere else in the Mental Health system) that has on their own continuously
cared for someone along with their entire range of needs over an extended
period like this.
This however is the only way to fully appreciate
and understand what is required and why and to grow through all the underlying
feelings that stop people really being unselfish and able to serve. During this
difficult period I actually organised Mary to see a
number of health professionals (doctors, psychiatrists, counsellors
etc), insisted that she try a number of different medication regimes and
ensured that she took the drugs prescribed over these many years. If Mary had
been left to the vagaries of the public mental health system in
I in fact made a formal request in December whilst
on remand at the AGCC to be transferred to JOMH myself in order to allow a full
psychiatric assessment both in company with and separate from Mary. This was
ostensibly refused by Bill Kingswell due to financial
constraints. I however believe that the real reason was that it is easy to
harass and distress a 58 year old non-violent Christian woman but they lacked
the simple courage to confront and deal with a 54 year old non-violent
Christian man and Minister who would not tolerate their impropriety and
misconduct.
(v) Yellowlees has a
number of major unresolved personal emotional issues of his own and clearly his
relationships with women in particular are most unhealthy and dishonest. It is
no exaggeration to say that he should be kept well away from all female
patients until he acknowledges, deals with and resolves the onerous load of
unexpressed anger, pain and fear he so obviously carries himself. At very least he is guilty of sexual harassment although this is a
very forgiving description of his disgraceful misconduct.
In Yellowlees' brief
conversation with Mary (despite his claims, only about ten minutes in duration)
he was clearly predisposed in advance to support his psychiatric colleagues at
the JOMH. It is not unreasonable to see his unwanted involvement as yet another
malicious response to our serious, well-founded criticisms of his crooked
cronies there.
Yellowlees manifestly fabricated a diagnosis unfavourable to not only Mary but also to myself (without
actually talking to me) and scandalously distorted the facts to do so.
To be specific:-
- Mary has
never said or implied that she is “unable to talk to any men”. In fact she
talked to and dealt with several male patients and staff in JOMH and relates in
a sensible and careful way to men in the normal course of our life, even when I
am not present.
- Mary has
never said that I “always spoke for her and made all the important decisions”
in our lives.
- Mary and
I do not have a documented history of stalking and being abusive towards
authority figures and we have never been convicted of any such offences.
- Mary
certainly did look “her age” after 5 awful months subject to the real
deprivation, neglect, abuse, invalidation and assault of the JOMH but only a
blind and ignorant fool whose views should be resolutely ignored could possibly
conclude that Mary was then only “mildly obese” - she was over 20 kg, or 30%
overweight!
- his comments in regard to our relationship and state of mind
are arrant nonsense and have far more validity within the ambit of his own life
and relationships.
- Yellowlees has no information available to support the
conclusion that Mary "at the time of the offences was certainly of unsound
mind" because he, like the staff never discussed with Mary or myself what
actually happened in each case and why. Anyone who blindly accepted the police
version of any incident would either be dangerously naive and criminally
negligent or equally corrupt.
- the self-justifying remarks he put forward about Mary’s
future needs are not only factually false and incorrect but they are deeply
offensive, impertinent, insulting and defamatory. This is especially so in view
of the fact that he predictably did not even have the decency, courage and
common courtesy to talk to me.
The sinister nature of Yellowlee's
involvement becomes blatantly obvious in his conclusions and recommendations
that Mary needs "long-term", "life-long anti-psychotic
medication". Mary is not and never has been psychotic by their own
authoritative references (see Notes on Psychiatric Assessments below). Mary has
never physically harmed or threatened herself or anyone else and there is
therefore no compelling reason to impose medication or detain her under duress
- at very worst Mary could be viewed as a ppolitical embarrassment In fact
Mary's entire presentation and demeanour during the
very brief conversation with Yellowlees by his own
description was consistent with a normal, healthy, mature, balanced and
sensible woman with a commendable devotion to her Christian beliefs, coping
extremely well with what constituted a hostile and alien environment, under an
enormous amount of stress from within and without.
The most "serious" charge of stalking we both faced was described by the Chief Justice of the
Court of Appeal in my own case as most unlikely to attract any further
custodial sentence than the time I had already spent on remand (5 months). In
fact I was subsequently given a twelve months suspended sentence after pleading
guilty to an offence I clearly was not guilty of, the best outcome I could
expect in this completely corrupt state. In Mary's case as a woman, even if she
had been found guilty, she would not have gone to jail, a fact that no doubt
had not escaped them. All the other alleged offences are at worst of a nuisance
nature and no-one was harmed or threatened. It was an outrage that Mary was
detained for nearly a year under these circumstances and it could only have
happened in
In direct contrast to the highly speculative,
theoretical surmising of this academically isolated sycophant and impertinent
upstart (Yellowlees), I am both educationally
qualified and uniquely experienced. I have nearly thirty (30) years of intense
contact assisting, counselling and giving guidance
and direction to a large number of jail inmates, psychiatric patients, drug and
alcohol addicted, poor, homeless and oppressed, many of whom have been in very
difficult and disturbed states indeed. Unlike most of the psychiatrists I have
met, as a real Christian Minister I actually spend a great deal of time with
these people (not a few minutes every week or so), often I live and work among
them (such as the four months I spent in the AGCC and the two months I lived at
the Pindari Homeless Men's shelter) and am
unselfishly devoted to their needs in ways that those who are so quick to criticise and condemn me could not appreciate nor cope
with. My credentials in this regard are impeccable and my approach to
understanding human behaviour is practical, without
hypocrisy and based upon my demonstrated care of my own body and spirit, the
first basic prerequisite to being able to make any worthwhile comment on the
issues of physical, emotional, behavioural (“mental”)
or spiritual health.
(vi) Although patients are supposed to be treated
as suffering from an involuntary mental illness over which they have little, if
any control, the reality is that a not inconsiderable number of staff
(especially at the JOMH) are at least some of the following - rude, aggressive,
dictatorial, unkind, lacking in compassion, patronising,
unaware of patients' space, gloomy, critical, detached and intolerant. Many
staff behave in an inconsistent, arbitrary,
obstructive, perverse and changeable way, the worst are really destructive,
game playing and trouble making and almost all to some degree misuse patients
as a convenient focus for all the issues and feelings that they haven't the
decency, courage and integrity to deal with in their own private lives. This
introduction of their personal emotional agenda into their work
responsibilities is highly improper and unprofessional yet has now become very
common.
It is not uncommon to see examples of obvious
projective behaviour by both nursing and medical
staff whereby they consciously or unconsciously try to off load their own guilt
onto defenceless patients and/or see things in patients'
health, attitude, behaviour or beliefs that are
actually true of themselves. In a sense they see what they want to see, hear
what they want to hear and believe what is personally and professionally
expedient, rather than what is true, accurate and correct. One outstanding
example is the conclusions made by several of the psychiatrists in their
reports that Mary lacked insight into her “illness” and condition. In fact Mary
is quite remarkably aware of her own behaviour and in
touch with the full spectrum of her feelings but this simply cannot be said of
those who have presumed to sit in judgement of her.
In fact Mary was treated far, far worse than Anita
Morton who had actually killed her three beautiful, defenceless
young children. Morton readily admitted to Mary privately that she was
terrified of going to jail and seemed to have fabricated a most absurd and
implausible explanation for her actions in order to be psychiatrically confined
instead of having to face court proceedings. During her time at JOMH, the staff
outrageously indulged Morton when what she needed was to be directly and firmly
confronted with the truth of the obscenity she had committed. Morton only spent
about 9 months in maximum security before being transferred to Medium Secure at
TPCH - not long after she was actually given week leave and then completely
released to Pine Rivers Community Care in an open residential house situation. Although
it is always right to be compassionate, this is absolutely astonishing, a
disgraceful, highly discriminatory, irresponsible, unfair,
unprofessional and unjust example of blatant favouritism for a female who has clearly not come to terms
with what she did or why, less than a year previously. No father who had done
this would ever have been treated so leniently in the same circumstances nor
are most of the young male patients who have been guilty of considerably less
actual violence.
There are other most
unfair and unjust double standards in the system - as an example assaults by
patients upon one another are viewed very differently to assaults by patients
on staff. The latter are treated very harshly and there are numerous instances
within the mental health system in this state of patients who have been
systematically disadvantaged, harassed and spitefully persecuted for years,
even decades because they have been unwise and unrestrained enough to assault a
member of staff. This occurs even though the assault is often an
understandable, reasonable and in many ways justifiable response to the
extraordinarily violent and extremely provocative prior misbehaviour
by staff.
(vii) Mary was hit very hard over the head with a
bag of CDs by a female patient called Natasha who, despite having a known
history of violence towards staff and fellow patients alike and who behaved
therefore in a not uncharacteristic and unexpected way, was not adequately
supervised.
Also a very violent male patient called Rodney
explicitly and offensively exposed himself to Mary, as a consequence of which she was herself punished by having her medication
dosage increased 50% simply because she screamed in fright. This particular
patient is allowed to maraud around ripping up his and others clothing,
destroying furniture and paintings, making an enormous amount of noise,
savagely biting other patients and generally giving no-one any peace. He is
indulged shamefully by staff (some female nurses sit beside him and stroke him
in a most inappropriate manner) and takes up a totally disproportionate amount
of staff time and resources simply because they refuse to be firm and straight
with him, putting him into seclusion when he misbehaves. It is not fair,
productive or helpful to anyone, staff or patients alike, to not set Rodney
proper limits.
Mary also was grabbed by other male patients and
had her hair pulled on a number of occasions by Michael Kyle. It is simply
unrealistic to have males and females together in the same area without some
private areas of refuge and this put my wife at risk, both physically and
emotionally. Many male patients roam freely around the unit, often bare to the
waist, without any staff intervention. In general the staff were at best
disinterested in Mary's welfare, at worst some thought it amusing and clearly
enjoyed seeing Mary distressed because of unresolved issues of their own.
(viii) To be specific, Mary at admission to the
JOMH on the 9th October 2000 had a full, active, varied, fulfilling, highly
enjoyable and at times adventurous life, she was physically very fit and
healthy (far more so than any of the staff at JOMH) and had a resting pulse of
around 40. This is quite extraordinary for a woman of her age who does no
artificial form of exercise. Mary looked ten years younger than her age, cared
well for her own body and spirit and was only slightly overweight at 70 kg,
something she was sensibly and slowly bringing under control. Mary did not
smoke, drank alcohol very moderately, was not addicted to any drugs, did not
need or take any medication, had very high standards of self-care and had no
thoughts of or expressed intentions of harming herself or anyone else in any
way. Emotionally Mary was very mature, self-aware, open, honest and spontaneous
and was in touch with and expressed the full range of her feelings
appropriately and non-violently with extraordinary restraint and maturity. This
was especially commendable when the untenable position she has been illegally
put in for years and the stress she is currently under is considered. There was
a reasonable explanation for what had occurred in every case as far as the
minor police charges were concerned and Mary had always behaved in a rational,
sensible, appropriate manner in the circumstances.
Five (5) months later, Mary was very overweight at
88 kg, full of fluid and her self-esteem was greatly depressed as a
consequence. She enjoyed no peace within or without, had no space to herself
and was constantly on edge and jumpy. All this was entirely due to the
environment in which she was forced to live, to the debilitating effects of the
inappropriate and excessive medication and because she was denied appropriate
opportunities for and encouragement to exercise by staff, many of whom are
sedentary, inactive, overweight and unhealthy themselves. Mary's pulse had
increased to over 100, her blood pressure was considerably elevated and she
could not feel or express in a healthy and open way most of her feelings, again
entirely due to the dissociating and dulling effects of the dangerous chemical
censorship. Mary to some degree was "lacking in affect", not unlike
most of the staff, and her health and quality and enjoyment of life was
disastrously damaged by what in real terms constituted neglect, deprivation,
abuse, assault and invalidation. (I refer to my letter to the HRC dated
Life for Mary was a constant, lonely, monotonous,
intolerable nightmare for all the reasons we to no avail exhaustively
documented in writing to staff and management over the period. There was no counselling or therapy whatsoever and the overall approach
taken is dangerously reliant upon sedation/medication and physical containment
with minimal input by staff. The only respite for Mary were the times I talked
to her on the telephone (3-4 times a day from Arthur Gorrie
Remand Centre), the single visit organised in the four
months we were separated a mere three mks away from
one another, the infrequent visits we were subsequently allowed on my release
(3 x 45 minutes a week), the occasional ward activities and the even rarer
brief escorted walks Mary was occasionally allowed - none for the first 2
months and only 4 in the entire 5 months at the JOMH.
The (supposedly rational and sane) psychiatrists
charged with the responsibility for Mary's welfare and well-being (and grossly
overpaid to do so), unanimously recommended to the MHT that she should continue
to be kept at the JOMH as a regulated patient in secure custody indefinitely
despite:-
- all the above clear contra-indications
- the fact that neither medication had any effect whatsoever
on Mary's religious beliefs, perception of reality, insight into/appreciation
of her own behaviour and concept of self
- the minor nature of the charges against her
- her total commitment to non-violence - Mary has not actually
threatened nor harmed anyone
This can only be seen as highly irregular and
improper, if not sinister and illegal.
(ix) There was little respect allowed by staff or
by the unit environment itself at the JOMH for Mary's simple, easily
accommodated, idiosyncratic needs and we had to fight for the smallest
concessions. In fact, far from being compassionate, sympathetic, tolerant and
professional, most male staff and especially the psychiatric registrars and
consultants behaved high-handedly and with total disregard, even contempt for
Mary’s position as a Christian and as a woman. They ignored her repeated
requests to speak to and deal with female psychiatrists and nurses only and
self-indulgently and violently imposed themselves upon her in ways that are
clearly aggressive, manipulative and indirectly angry. They all demonstrated a
callous insensitivity, childish insecurity and churlish hostility about this
important issue. It is not inappropriate to say that Mary was actively
discriminated against and harrassed as a woman and as
a Christian in the JOMH and later at TPCH in the same ways by nursing staff. When
minor concessions and changes were made in response to our requests, little
formal acknowledgment of this was forthcoming to validate our feedback nor were we ever thanked for our input. Everything was done
begrudgingly and covertly and we were made to feel that we were somehow being
unreasonable, rather than them.
When Mary was first transferred to the Medium
Secure Unit at TPCH, her medication was changed from Olanzapine
to Seroquel at our request in consultation with Dr
Diana Lange. It was agreed due to Mary's hypersensitivity to all forms of
medication that Seroquel would be introduced slowly
and the dose increased gradually over about a week. On the first morning that
she was to take Seroquel, coincidentally the Sabbath
day, Mary was presented with 3 tablets by the nurse Violet, 2x200mg and
1x100mg, a total of 500 mg or ten times (10X) the prescribed dose. Mary
naturally queried this because her (correct) understanding was that she was to
be given only 50 mg to begin with. Violet went away to check with Ayesha, the
nurse responsible for medication that morning. Violet came back and insisted
that the pills were correct but Mary again expressed her reservations. Violet
checked yet again and maintained that the dose was correct so Mary took the
medication with some reluctance.
Understandably Mary had a serious adverse reaction
to this significant overdose - she was extremely dizzy, nearly fainted several
times, had significant changes to her heart rhythms/patterns and remained
heavily sedated and unable to get out of bed without assistance for a number of
days. Despite Mary's debilitated condition, Ayesha bizarrely tried to insist
that Mary sit up at the HDU dining table to eat lunch only a few hours after
the overdose - I intervened, fed Mary a little lunch in bed and later gave her
a bath myself, carefully and safely.
This alarming incident is only too typical of what
is increasingly happening within so many improperly supervised institutional
environments like hospitals and prisons during weekends and after hours. It
would be serious enough in itself if only an instance of gross incompetence or
negligence. However in this case we know that it was not a simple oversight.
Apart from the stringent checks and balances within
the system as far as medication is concerned, Mary queried the dose a number of
times, something that was not her responsibility to do, and there was no way
that Ayesha could have mistakenly or inadvertently given out the incorrect
amount - it was written up correctly in the medication book. We were therefore
rightly very suspicious and believed that Ayesha may have done this
deliberately out of malice or with serious criminal intent. At the time Violet
was genuinely concerned and apologetic but Ayesha was untroubled and resolutely
refused to apologise despite having abundant
opportunities to do so.
Although in words the hospital management and
medical staff assured us that they had taken this incident very seriously and
were investigating it thoroughly, Ayesha predictably completely escaped any
censure. We have absolutely no confidence in their impartiality, determination
or ability to even consider that Ayesha's actions may have been deliberate - as
with police investigating police, they simply will not face the truth about
their own kind. Not surprisingly, as a consequence of their inaction and
consistent with her own guilt, Ayesha's behaviour
towards us deteriorated and she became increasingly unprofessional, difficult
and provocative, cumulating in a further incident detailed below.
The next problem we experienced arose as a result
of our efforts to type up this report to the HRC using one of the four
computers available in the hospital library. These facilities are used by
staff, students, visitors and some patients so we asked Lyn, the assistant
librarian for permission. At first she was reasonably pleasant and readily
agreed although someone in charge does need to tell her to show some
consideration for library users because she talks far too loudly, at the top of
her voice, with no consideration for users. Like so many staff we have
encountered over the past ten months Lyn treats the facilities as though they
are her own, for her personal use and at her (arbitrary) discretion.
Soon, however, for reasons of her own which had
nothing whatsoever to do with her professional responsibilities Lyn went behind
our back to the chief librarian and fabricated a complaint about our use of the
facilities. This individual, instead of first talking to us and at least
listening to our side of what supposedly had happened, came over and somewhat
unpleasantly asked me to be considerate of other users who might be waiting to
access the computers. This blind acceptance of females' idle gossip and
tale-telling is again only too typical of public institutional environments
today.
Naturally we were surprised and considerably
aggravated, not only because of Lyn's lying and deceit but also by the unfair
manner in which it was mishandled. As a Christian (and in contrast to Lyn and
her boss) I am aware and considerate and had in no way monopolised
the facilities when anyone was waiting.
Because she had, like Ayesha got away with her
trouble making unrebuked due to the useless and
ineffectual abdication of her manager, Lyn continued to act improperly and
covertly. We were soon confronted by Robert Purssey,
the registrar of Medium Secure who had been contacted by the librarian with a
false account of what had happened. He said that a decision had been made to
restrict my use of the computers to a maximum of ten minutes at a time. I was
happy to comply because by then we had organised
limited access to the computer in the unit itself. I
was however understandably suspicious of Lyn's motives and behaviour
and so decided to watch what was going on when I next went up to the Library.
On this occasion all computers were being used and
so I waited. In particular a young female student used one machine for an hour
and a half while several other students and members of staff came,
waited and most then left. This person was totally oblivious to her selfishness
and it became apparent that her misuse of the computer was not even for work or
study but was personal. I managed to do other work in the meantime at which
stage another computer became available. I asked a female member of staff
waiting if she would like to go first even though I had been waiting longer. She
said she needed to use the particular machine still being used by the female
student who resolutely ignored this comment.
I used the available computer for about six minutes
to check my E-Mail and then vacated it and offered it to the person still
waiting. She still maintained that she needed to use the other computer so
after waiting ten minutes or so I sat down again at the vacant machine. I had
been there only a minute or so when Lyn came over and in a rude and provocative
manner asked me to allow the female waiting to use the computer. She of course
said nothing to the female student who continued to monopolise
the other machine as her problem had nothing whatsoever to do with computer
use. It was yet another example of a very nasty, unfit public servant
improperly misusing the power entrusted to her by introducing all her own
unresolved emotional issues, prejudices and discriminatory biases into her
"work" (if you can call it that). I was outraged but simply explained
the situation, got up from the computer, asked her very directly for her
manager's name and left.Increasing guilty and
believing rightly that I was going to take this further, Lyn then lied again to
her manager and I was confronted by a hostile Russell Williamson (Nursing
Manager - Medium Secure) who was not only misinformed but fully determined to
stay that way. Williamson was totally uninterested in what really happened for
reasons that will become obvious below and summarily told us that we were no
longer permitted to use the computer facilities. He refused to discuss the
matter further or listen to our side so I rang Diana Lange, the psychiatric
consultant in charge of the unit who suggested I speak to Kathy Arandt, the Administrative Manager of Mental Health at
TPCH. I tried to make an appointment to see Arandt by
both phone and personally at the MHU reception but she refused to speak to me. Arandt absurdly referred me back to Williamson - I wished
to make a complaint about him due to his rude, arrogant attitude and several
other problems we were experiencing in the unit.
To be specific, Mary in negotiation with nursing
staff had made an agreement to take her meals in the patients' kitchen instead
of the dining room. With one exception all other patients in medium secure were
males, most had committed acts of serious violence including murder, grievous
bodily harm and sex offences and many were young, angry and at times
aggressive, intrusive and difficult to be around. Because most smoked and many
did not shower or wash their clothes often enough, the environment in the
small, cramped, airless dining room was simply not suitable for anyone to eat
in peace, certainly not a 58 year old non-violent Christian woman. The dining
area also looks out on the depressing area where patients smoke.
Most staff made this reasonable, minor concession
very begrudgingly with great reluctance because they really hate to serve their
patients' needs and do not like to treat them as individuals. It caused them no
inconvenience whatsoever and Mary had already eaten by herself for 5 months on
what became the women's verandah at JOMH. Although it is often
"parroted" that the reality of secure, institutional environments
requires imposing generalised restraints upon
inmates, in fact this is just a deceitful excuse to do as little as possible
for patients and in some cases an obvious sadistic enjoyment is derived from
imposing hardship and privation on them. There is no justification for their
approach as by no stretch of the imagination can the staff been seen as
over-extended - quite the reverse. As in JOMH much of the time they sit in the
"fish bowl" area, idly talk about their personal lives, make fun of
and do as little as humanly possible for the very people they are (over)paid to
serve and react sullenly and with great reluctance when asked to respond to the
simplest, easiest to fulfil request. As a consequence
of being required to do so little for so many years, many nursing staff misuse
the abundant opportunities available to indulge their idle curiosity and
gratify their depraved voyeurism. The worst are parasitic bludgers,
lazy freeloaders, trouble making busybodies and destructive deviates who interfere in patients' lives, actively obstructing their
care and spoiling their fun in pursuit of their publicly funded, vicious
vendettas. It is not unfair or unreasonable to say that the staff approach in
both hospital units is sedentary, verbal, inactive, detached, indoors and
intellectual when real healing needs a climate of diligent, physically active,
emotionally empathic, involved, aware, personal, individual caring, outdoors as
much as is practicable.
Mary's individual dining arrangements continued for
only about a week before one of the nurses, Sean Pitcher, best described as
Russell Williamson's offsider, summarily and
pompously announced that she had "breached her contract" and could
"only eat in future in the patient's dining room". His behaviour was arbitrary, high-handed, improper,
provocative, nasty and completely unjustified - Mary and I protested but
Williamson refused to listen and as a consequence the hospital did not provide
a single meal for one of its in-patients for five (5) whole weeks.
Through the Grace of GOD I managed to supply Mary
with all her meals during this whole period. Some meals we purchased at the
Breeze Cafe but I was only being paid a single benefit at the time and this
placed us under considerable financial hardship. However we had met two
visiting doctors from
The progressive leave arrangements routinely
imposed by the PRT require patients and their family and visitors to wander
around the hospital grounds for hours and hours every single day as the only
alternative to sitting in the unit itself. In our case we were expected to do
this for nearly three months, an absurd and totally unreasonable and
unrealistic situation which would not be tolerated by staff themselves. There
is nowhere in the entire hospital where we could make ourselves comfortable
outside the psychiatric unit - the cafŽ tends to be
busy and noisy and besides, no-one wants to sit in a cafe for very long. All
the comfortable chairs there are reserved for staff, as usual, who regularly
make an enormous amount of noise themselves.
We were naturally responsible, careful and
considerate in the Red Cross rooms, made a positive daily contribution in terms
of assisting visiting patients families and doing some
cleaning and tidying and were generally very careful of the space. This could
not be said of many of the staff that also shared the common areas. I also
arranged to do a course in town at the Red Cross headquarters to become a
volunteer.
Despite this one of the resident female hospital
staff vindictively destroyed this space for no good reason except her own guilt
and jealousy and complained to Williamson and Arandt.
After five weeks we were summarily banned from the Red Cross rooms and told if
we went back they would have Security remove us. Fortunately, however through
the Grace of GOD we had enjoyed the facilities for the time we needed - Mary
was at that stage finally allowed to take breakfast up at West Wing,
transferred there completely a little later and at last given leave off the
grounds late in May.
Some time prior to her transfer we had yet another
incident involving Ayesha - this is on hospital record. At the time Mary and I
were in the room immediately next to the front door where we were obliged to
sit as I was not allowed into the unit visiting areas. I had as usual placed
some personal items in one of the lockers used for this purpose; some files for
Diana Lange in a cardboard box clearly marked in felt pen with our names. The
locker I was using was low down just above floor level and I had reported a
fault with its lock to a number of staff over the previous weeks. The locker
was very difficult to lock and even when locked could be easily pulled open. As
a consequence I didn't bother locking it that day but removed the key so that
others would know it was in use - I put the key inside the locker itself. There
was an open vacant locker immediately above it.
A little later Ayesha burst into the room with one
of the other patients and his visitors in tow. Clearly she was enjoying the
prospect of disrupting our peace and intruding upon our privacy. I reminded her
firmly that there was another visiting room next door and she with poor grace
took them there. As the visiting time drew to a close, I went out to retrieve
my property from the locker. To my dismay and disgust, someone (I immediately
suspected Ayesha) had removed my box, put it on the
adjacent sink. I pulled open the locker door and found a woman's handbag on top
of the bright blue, 2" thick confidential file I had left there in the
box. I removed the handbag, placed it on the sink, put the file back in the box
and replaced the box in the locker which I closed. Later as I was about to
leave a young woman came out apparently to collect her handbag and was most
upset to find it on the sink. I told her what had happened and why and she said
that Ayesha had put her bag into the locker and given her the key. When Ayesha
arrived she readily admitted removing the box and tried to pretend that she
didn't realise the locker was already taken. This was
patently a lie which does not even remotely agree with the facts of the
situation. I accused her of deliberately trying to provoke yet another incident
and left in disgust.
Far from being apologetic, Ayesha was motivated by
my reprimand to inflame the incident further. She actively encouraged the woman
to make a complaint and several days later I was queried by Sean Pitcher, yet
another guilty, under-utilised member of staff who
really enjoys causing trouble and creating crises. I patiently explained what
had happened and said that Ayesha should be admonished by management - Pitcher
went away apparently satisfied.
On the very day that Mary was signing the new
contract for her transfer to West Wing, we were confronted by Williamson and
Pitcher together. They behaved in an intimidating, provocative manner and tried
to interrogate us, treating me like a patient. They claimed that I had broken
the locker (another lie) and that the hospital was claiming $100 in
compensation for its repair. I again angrily explained what had happened going
over the details three times. Finally in exasperation I accused Williamson in
collusion with Pitcher of trying to fraudulently extort the sum of $100 from
me. I told him that he was an incompetent disgrace as a manager, clearly
unwilling and uninterested in supervising and monitoring his own staff.
Williamson does not even remotely fulfil his responsibilities as a paid public servant and is
emotionally unsuitable and totally unfit to be put in charge of anyone in a
vulnerable position, ever. He is unstable, irrationally changeable, displays
many of the classic symptoms of highly controlled paranoid schizophrenia and
has perfected the art of behaving helpfully and pleasantly towards those he
wishes to impress yet extraordinarily nasty, menacing, vindictive and destructive
towards patients when no-one else is around. Williamson is largely responsible
for most of the fully avoidable difficulties, conflict and violence which
occurs in the Medium Secure Unit and the pervading unhealthy staff climate is a
result of his attitude, approach and style. He is incapable of being pleasant,
kind, caring, supportive, sympathetic, understanding and compassionate and he
actually obstructs and tries to spoil any healing efforts by others.
The only way you can understand why such a person
could behave like this is to realise that he totally
misuses his position, not only for his own unsavoury
ambition and self-gratification but also to off-load all the guilt and other unfaced feelings from his personal life onto defenceless patients already over-stressed and in crisis. Finally
Williamson willing colludes with and is improperly influenced by corrupt police
who have been desperate in our case to cause some major difficulty at TPCH so
that Mary's entitled progression and release would be disrupted.
As a
consequence of the above we requested a meeting with John Bowles (Mental Health
Director - TPCH) and Kathy Arandt in an attempt to
resolve the outstanding issues which became the subject of a formal complaint. At
the meeting Arandt and Bowles obdurately refused to
take any criticism of staff seriously (Bowles said that he didn't "want
any rancour") and they were both less than
useless and ineffectual. In fact they just wasted our time and energy and
further aggravated the situation by their subsequent inaction and total
abdication of paid responsibilities which effectively constituted illegal
collusion. They should both be immediately fired.
(x) Staff and especially senior management at the
JOMH (notably Terry Stedman, Peter Fama and Bill Kingswell) largely failed to deal with and refused to
respond to our complaints - this only angered us further and led to us writing
more strongly worded letters which they also ignored. Their staff-centred approach, unwillingness to accept any responsibility
nor acknowledge any blame, their refusal to be open, careful, impartial, fair
and balanced and their arrogant, absurdly defensive, rigid, hostile and even
malicious attitude were actually symptomatic at very least of incompetence,
emotional immaturity and behavioural dysfunctionality and even constitute clinical paranoia. Senior
management and the worst of junior staff behave as though they are beyond
reproach, that they are always right and that they can do whatever they like
with no concern for consequences or fear of being held accountable. They act as
if they are answerable to no-one, especially not to patients, their families
and friends, the very people they are (over)paid to serve. They state quite
openly that they do not like interference and involvement from anyone outside
their cosy, cosseted domain, not even other doctors,
psychiatrists or health professionals. This closed and insular climate and
approach, exclusive of input and opinions from outside, is not just unhealthy
but is potentially highly dangerous for patients and Mary & I are clearly
not the only people understandably aggrieved by the infamous situation at the
JOMH.
(xi) I had spoken to Neilsen
at the AGCC but he had nothing whatsoever to do with Mary's case. This is just
one example where unauthorised staff not directly
involved in Mary’s care breached confidentiality by accessing her medical
records and meddled in her case with what can only be described as idle
curiosity. When a second opinion was organised with
considerable difficulty, it was conducted by Pam Van Der
Hoef who was doing a two week locum on leave from the
Mental Health Unit of the
(xii) It is indicative of the hypocrisy and double
standards which abound in the JOMH that staff actually encourage patients to
smoke (remember, this is a hospital run by the Department of Health!!!) and
supply 2 cigarettes to them gratis every hour throughout the day - this amounts
to approximately $60 per week of taxpayers money. This is totally unacceptable,
a waste of public taxpayers money and a very good indication of their true
commitment to their own and their patients’ health and welfare. As with other
aspects of patient care, staff use the dishonest,
nonsensical justification that they cannot force anyone to not smoke. In fact
they just do not want to deal with the stress, tension and intensity of
emerging feelings that are an inevitable consequence of denying smoking
patients cigarettes. This however is the perfect place to do this, it would be
beneficial to everyone's health and is what everyone really needs - it would
also
have the additional advantage of getting the staff actually
working and stop them sitting and talking. There is no excuse for allowing
smoking in a hospital as even police watchouses are
now designated smoke-free areas without major problems.
Mary was unable to use the outdoor recreation area
for 5 months because of smoking by staff, patients and their visitors, the
ever-present stench and the large numbers of cigarette butts left on the grass
and garden beds. The staff do absolutely nothing to
ensure that patients and their visitors use ashtrays and/or clean up their own
mess except the infrequent, unnecessary "emu" parade. This
additionally meant that Mary was denied adequate opportunities for beneficial
exercise and was effectively imprisoned for this entire time into the narrow
area finally (after considerable, unacknowledged input by ourselves) designated
as the women's' veranda - she was not safe in the TV rooms and lounge inside.
(xiii) Mary was in a position in the JOMH where she
had no outside support from family and friends, limited resources of her own
and restricted help from me whilst on remand in the AGCC. In the whole five (5)
months, no-one could buy Mary from her own funds (or have made to the same very
simple pattern as the one she was wearing) a suitable dress - I managed both of
these in one afternoon when released. In general Items like clothing, toiletry
needs and bank withdrawals take an inordinate amount of time to organise and it is difficult to understand how frustrating
this can be unless you are actually in the situation yourself. One aspect that
I did appreciate was that the Patients’ Friends office organised
flowers on my behalf for Mary on credit on four separate occasions.
The worst two aspects of this lack of support were
the contact Mary needed with DYFCC and Mary's residency status. With DYFCC we
have a long standing and highly contentious dispute in regards to ongoing
contact with our children. No aware health professional could possibly deny
that it is important for Mary to have some form of access to our children for
her own emotional welfare yet no-one at the JOMH did anything about this in the
whole 5 months she spent there. Quite the reverse - the social worker Sue
refused point blank to do anything to help.
As far as Mary's residency status was concerned,
the hospital was completely responsible for resolving this. This was a simple
matter of obtaining and filling in the relevent forms
and submitting these to the Department of Immigration along with the $70 fee which
Mary had in her trust account. Mary's residency would have been confirmed by
December 2000 and she would have been successful in applying for a Centrelink
benefit from that point. Legal advice that we have obtained is more than
confident that Mary's Disability Pension would have been granted, at very least
under appeal to the SSAT or AAT. The complete failure of the relevent staff at the JOMH and subsequent vaccilitation by Peter Macintosh, social worker at Medium
Secure TPCH, have effectively cost us approximately $4-5,000 in lost benefits.
(xiv) It is not an exaggeration to say that the
JOMH was completely in breach of its duty of care with Mary in so many
different and wide-ranging aspects as to constitute criminal negligence. At
very best they were simply not interested and their entire approach was that
Mary would adjust to suit them, rather that the reverse. Our complaints were
fully detailed in writing to the Health Rights Commission, to Peggy Brown, the
Director for Mental Health and to Wendy Edmond, the Minister for Health,
because the Wolston Park management and
administration would simply not listen nor act in a caring, concerned and open
way. In fact the ex-Director of High Security Peter Fama
quite bluntly stated that he had no need to deal with anything that he didn't
want to deal with and we found his arrogant, indulged attitude to be
inappropriate and offensive. His successor, Bill Kingswell
is worse, like a humourless automaton.
(xv) I formally requested to no avail to the MHT in
writing in November 2000 that Mary's case be heard in their December sittings
as a matter of urgency. We rightly considered that the delays in the system
were inexcusable, indefensible and iniquitous. Certainly the MHT needs to do
something tangible in order to shorten the months and months patients are kept
waiting unnecessarily after psychiatric assessments have been completed. The
members of the MHT could threaten the government with their own resignations
unless and until more MHT tribunals are appointed to share the case load.
(xvi) There are less harsh and more humane
placement alternatives especially considering that the actual nature of all the
alleged offences was minor and trivial, at worst of a nuisance nature. Mary
posed no real harm or threat to anyone and even if found guilty in a court of
law, she would not have attracted a custodial sentence.
Mary should therefore have been put where she
fairly belonged, in the Brisbane Women's’ Prison, from where she would soon
have been bailed. Mary has yet again suffered, unconvicted
and unsentenced, a de facto term of
imprisonment of nearly a year (5 months in secure custody much worse than jail)
in order to do an assessment that could and should have been completed
in a few hours.
(xvii) Although many staff would deceitfully claim
that they cannot force patients to keep themselves and their clothes clean and
their rooms neat and tidy, this is clearly absurd as staff impose their will
when it suits them in so many other ways without question or debate. There is considerable
evidence to support the fact that at best staff simply do not wish to be
actively involved in simple basic important aspects of patient care and
welfare, at worst they really enjoy in a deviate, voyeuristic way seeing
patients completely uncared for living in squalor. In the JOMH in particular
the standards of personal hygiene are deplorable, there is a pervading smell of
unwashed bodies and clothing and of tobacco smoke and predictably the place is
infested with rats and cockroaches. Staff are also in
breach of their duty of care in relation to government property as there is no
adequate supervision or monitoring of the state of patients' rooms - the
patients are invariably blamed. of course, when it is
always the staff's ultimate responsibility.
There is no fairness in apportioning resources like
food (the most intimidating, greediest, overweight and least needing people
steal the most food) or in allocating other entitlements. Generally speaking
the worst behaving and least deserving patients are indulged, not discouraged
and the most mature, responsible and considerate are deprived, discriminated
against and disadvantaged. There is certainly no reward or encouragement for
unselfish, kind, sharing, peaceful and hon-violent behaviour.
In both JOMH and Medium Secure televisions, radios
and CD players are allowed to be turned up very loud by patients usually
without any protest by staff and patients are similarly allowed to litter
public areas with cigarette butts and rubbish, lie around on the floor, wander
around half dressed, threaten other patients and use foul language with little
restraint or intervention by staff.
(xviii) Predictably the anger management course at
JOMH was/is run by totally unsuitable and unqualified members of staff with no
idea how to honestly cope with their own strong feelings. The assumptions
underlying course content are fundamentally flawed,
the approach superficial, vague and misleading and the suggestions and
recommendations made to patients are invariably contrived, counter productive
and cerebral, even dangerous. The "star" pupil Geoff Shepherd who had
attended a number of these courses predictably assaulted another patient!
At JOMH it was/is nearly impossible to get the
staff to take patients for walks and in Medium Secure the excellent though too
restrictive outdoor exercise yard was used much, much too rarely because staff
basically prefer to sit indoors and talk between themselves - the excuses given
were always implausible. Consequently patients and especially the young males
have no way to constructively discharge their energy and aggravation each day
which is both unhealthy and unfair. They are then tempted to take refuge in
loud music, illegal drugs and/or contemplate escaping with nothing else to
relieve the boredom and monotony. The staff are
themselves totally responsible for these completely avoidable problems and
incidents due to their laziness, sadism and uncaring disinterest.
(xix) In both JOMH and Medium Secure the situation
is really disgraceful because the morning medication invariably over-sedates
most of the patients who then need somewhere to lie down. Patients are however
locked out of their rooms until
It is not unfair to say that most psychiatrists
(and many psychologists) today have a fundamentally flawed perspective of
reality and their theoretical, grossly overvalued psychiatric model of human behaviour is narrow, rigid, intellectual and totally
inadequate, even counter-productive and dangerous, as evidenced by their almost
unblemished, true failure rate. Patients can spend decades in places like the
JOMH, even a lifetime, with no improvement or better understanding of their
condition. Psychiatrists like their other equally deluded medical colleagues
treat the human body and spirit as though it is a highly complex machine and
therefore focus absurdly on superficial physical considerations like genetic
and electro-biochemical factors to the exclusion of the far more crucial
emotional and spiritual factors.
Instead of realising that
repressed emotions cause the chemical and neural imbalances which then give
rise to the conditions, they foolishly believe that the changes in chemical
constituents are actually responsible for the illness and that these are
inherent or genetic in origin. The treatment of mental illness is therefore
confined to imposing chemical adjustments by way of medication which has
disastrous short, medium and long term side effects and other consequences. Instead
of helping the management of healing with just sufficient simple medication to
moderate the expression of emerging feelings (which would at least be
beneficial), they regularly prescribe drugs often not even designed for these
specific conditions (anti-epileptic agents, for example) in excessive doses
higher than manufacturers' recommendations or what is approved by government
health authorities. Finally, if this was not bad enough, psychiatrists commonly
mix combinations of up to six or more of these potent substances, not
recommended or approved for use together, into incredibly debilitating
cocktails which completely compromise patients' quality and enjoyment of life,
ruin their health and fitness and so repress their feelings that it is
difficult for them to experience any emotions at all. This is misportrayed as a success. These are the expressed opinions
and speculative theories of dangerously deluded, totally unfit, misguided,
meddling menaces well beyond the limits of their innate understanding and
strength of spirit with grandiose ideas about their own importance, grossly
impaired and limited judgement and with little or no
insight into their own behaviour, actions and
beliefs.
Drugs turn short intense acute crises requiring
really intensive care 24 hours a day, seven days a week, into a protracted,
never-ending long term chronic deterioration. It is dangerous to dissociate and
detach people from their spirits and feelings, they become like robots living
in their heads, capable of anything and lacking in emotional affect (like many
psychiatric professionals), their health is compromised along with their
ability to experience and enjoy life and they become violent and destructive to
themselves and to other people in indirect, covert ways. Medication usually
depresses the spirit, often causes unhealthy sedation for the selfish
convenience and laziness of staff and all medication has some side effects like
restlessness, edginess and the inability to relax, rest or sleep properly, the
exact opposite of what is really needed for healing.
To quote from a letter to me from Mary when in the
JOMH:-
"All the time you have to make an
extraordinary effort to do anything because the drugs make you feel sleepy,
grumpy, irritable, depressed, dissatisfied and anxious. It is hard to wake up
and get going, to get motivated to do anything or to physically exert yourself.
The drugs make you want to sit, sleep and stay indoors, it is difficult to
enjoy anything, even the things you normally enjoy, They give you nightmares
and you never feel fulfilled, just a lot of wasted time with nothing achieved. Drugs
turn most patients into shuffling zombies and emotional automatons who feel and
behave not unlike many of the staff."
The medication prescribed for Mary made her life a
daily torment for nearly five months and staff to a large
degree have shown a stubborn disinclination to listen and respond to our
complaints about this. They are therefore unable to be relied upon to really
put Mary's health and well being first. Generally staff are
defensive and unwilling to discuss, negotiate and be prepared to try different
dosages of medication or to listen to patients' objections to or protests about
its effects. This creates a climate of mistrust and encourages deceit - too
much medication is so commonly prescribed that patients are motivated to reduce
their own dosage levels when able to do so or go off the drugs completely as
soon as possible.
In fact the psychiatric profession and the public
mental health system have diverged so far from simple common sense and rational
reasoning with no checks and balances or input from outside their cosseted
domain that they are fast becoming quite detached from human behavioural reality. Many are so isolated from mainstream
society that they live in an unhealthy, artificial climate where the gross
misuse and abuse of medication, especially with regulated patients, is now
viewed as normal and acceptable because no-one questions their true motives or
actions. Defenceless, over-stressed, gullible and
desperate patients have their hope taken away by having their illness described
as incurable and they are tormented by being forced to take medication for
decades which always makes them feel dreadful. To not see the enormous amount
of deliberate, indirect anger that psychiatrists and nurses focus against
patients in this way with medication is to live in a very superficial world of
convenient fantasy.
We rightly consider so called "mental"
illness to be nothing to do with the mind at all or mental processes but is a disturbance
of the spirit. In most cases this is brought on by and is entirely a result of
years of emotional suppression and behavioural
conditioning in childhoods characterised by
increasingly common deprivation, neglect, abuse and invalidation. This gives
rise to dysfunctions in thinking, feeling and behaviour.
Unless it is treated as such all efforts to effect a
permanent, complete cure will inevitably fail and the approach taken will
simply be the superficial suppression of symptoms, yet again. In contrast to
modern psychiatric theory, this approach understands the underlying rationality
of human behaviour and appreciates the reasons why
even deeply disturbed people think, feel and behave as they do. In particular a
open, holistic approach is able to deal with and cure the phenomenon of people
hearing a voice or voices and
the prevailing belief by psychiatrists that this can somehow
be attributed to or caused by an imbalance in neural/cerebral chemicals is
fatuous nonsense.
The responsible, empathic use of sound-proofed
padded cells and other seclusion and restraint facilities is far more
productive and constructive, allowing the private, secure, managed expression
of intense feelings without disruption or danger to other patients or staff. Only
an ignorant fool could not see the vital importance and absolute necessity for
patients to learn to acknowledge, understand and non-violently (though
intensely) express their rage, pain and fear, the root cause of their so-called
"mental" illness, in a controlled and safe environment. Healing
crises as a consequence need to be managed and supervised by physically fit,
strong but gentle, emotionally mature and self-aware men using just enough
medication to moderate but not obstruct the expression of emerging feelings.
Notes on
the MHT Psychiatric Assessments
Mary and I take great exception to the finding that
she was or is of unsound mind or has ever been "mentally" ill. Although
this was the unanimous opinion of all the psychiatrists at JOMH there was
considerable disagreement, even complete contradiction, between their
assessments and those from four other equally qualified mental health
professionals - Jed Felgate at Carrington Hospital
and David Chaplow of Forensic Mental Health Services
in Auckland, Stokes-Taylor in Wellington and Gerrit Duplessis at Sunnyside Hospital in Christchurch. Incidentally,
none of these four (4) earlier reports would have even been included in the
JOMH submission to the Mental Health Tribunal unless I had sent them to JOMH
for their information and perusal and to be put on Mary's file.
In the cosy,
"incestuous" environment of the Queensland public mental health
system, the Mental Health Tribunal in its determinations only takes psychiatric
opinion into account, no matter what the qualifications and experience of other
people involved with the patient may be. However this highly suspect
quasi-judicial body not surprisingly selectively chose to ignore other favourable opinion from better informed psychiatrists
outside
The assessment made by Jed Felgate
in 1990 (attached to Peter Fama's report) is by far
the most intense and thorough previous evaluation ever completed on us both
together and this involved Mary & I being interviewed exhaustively for well
over 8 hours during a number of sessions. At our own request, we spent several
weeks as in-patients on remand at the
The Probation and Parole report attached to Fama's material is also reasonably fair, balanced and
helpful in its conclusions and to a lesser degree with the historical detail
presented. However this report also suffers from the same problems all the
other assessments demonstrate - they contain a great deal of false,
contradictory, exaggerated and/or spuriously speculative misinformation and
content, highly damaging to our position and deliberately so. The Chaplow report, though far more controversial and
containing a large number of serious factual errors especially in relation to
the history of our dealings with Children's' Services here in Queensland and
other details of our life on Page 3, also concludes that Mary is not suffering
from a mental illness.
Any sane, fair and balanced person who has spoken
to Mary and I at any length quickly realises that
there is something very suspicious about the views expressed by the
psychiatrists at JOMH and clearly a diagnosis of corruption and personal and
professional guilt is not inappropriate for them. Subsequent opinion by Diana
Lange at TPCH who had a far more intensive and in-depth contact with us both,
considerably diluted the seriousness of Mary's diagnosis although it would be
naive to believe that Lange was not subject to improper political influence in
this highly controversial case - she was employed as Queensland Chief Medical
Officer for a number of years! The two MIST team psychiatric nurses Sherry
& Noelene, the only people to actually visit us
at home, openly concluded that they could see nothing at all wrong with Mary
after trying to look at her from every different angle.
According to an authoritative reference
"Comprehensive Text Book of Psychiatry" (7th edition) - Kaplan and Sadocks, typical patients with paranoid schizophrenia
psychosis are tense, suspicious, hostile, guarded and reserved. To confirm a PS
diagnosis, two or more of the following symptoms usually persist for a month or
more:-
1) Delusions
2) Hallucinations
3) Disorganised speech
4) Grossly disorganised
or catatonic behaviour
5) Negative symptoms such as affective flattening, alogia and avolition
Moreover PS patients tend to be highly sensitive
(conversely not all sensitive people are schizophrenics!), they tend to show a
neglected personal appearance and their efforts at grooming tend to be minimal,
their lives characterised by social withdrawal and
they cannot communicate the quality and strength of emotional attachments. Diagnosticians
look for a blunting of emotional response and a precox
feeling or a failure to emotionally contact with the patient.
With the exception of her stated, commendable
sensitivity and vulnerability, not one of the above even remotely applies to
Mary (or myself) but all are true of many of the staff
at the JOMH, especially the psychiatrists. It should be noted that not one
member of staff at the John Oxley Memorial Hospital in nearly five months
really empathised with, tried to understand, shared
with or related to Mary, a very simple and compelling task for anyone with an
open, caring heart. In contrast two psychiatric registrars, Kathryn Galvin and Gallena Svetsova abd the two MIST nurses Sherry and Noelene
at TPCH were able to do this and were of considerable support.
The appalling and frightening aspect of the above
is that by their own evaluative criteria so many psychiatrists, psychologists,
psychiatric nurses and other staff are at very least mildly afflicted with a
chronic paranoid schizophrenic disorder, some severely so. With the worst, such
as many of the staff at the JOMH, it is reasonable to make an assessment of
paranoid schizophrenia psychosis. Many are very
shut-off and hard with a diminished capacity to experience any feelings at all
(except intellectually, to think them or speak them in words), demonstrate an
absent or distant, detached, patronising voyeurism
and show little true empathy, compassion, kindness, fairness or balance. The
psychiatrists especially have mastered the art of affecting a socially
acceptable, outward facade, are highly controlled except when no-one but
patients or other staff are around and can be very vicious and spiteful when
even reasonably criticised.
The basis for the JOMH's diagnoses that Mary is suffering from paranoid
schizophrenia were:-
1) Mary
displays very variable mood swings and therefore suffers from schizophrenia
2) Mary's
religious beliefs are over-valued and delusional
3) Mary's
beliefs about the harassment and effective persecution we have encountered over
20 years here in
As far as Mary's emotional state was concerned, she
initially was co-operative, understandably somewhat upset but not unduly so and
was never in a state of "high dudgeon", a complete fabrication by
that dangerous, physical, emotional and spiritual dwarf Peter Fama in his report. Mary never showed significant
"pressure of speech" (Mary and I speak with definition and authority
and with an emotional intonation appropriate to how we are feeling at the time)
nor "a degree of circumstantiality"
(we are able to coherently deal with a number of related issues at the same
time).
It is true to say that Mary on admission (and myself today) have demonstrated a far greater commitment to
our own overall health than any of the staff and we rightly consider their
comments and assessments to be hypocritical and highly dubious. For example,
Andrew Neilson, a previous JOMH registrar with whom I had considerable dealings
when in the Arthur Gorrie Remand Centre, was very
overweight and unhealthy, quite disgracefully so for someone of his young age,
and clearly this simple fact adversely compromises any opinions and negates any
judgements he may make about other people's physical,
emotional or spiritual health. His understanding is entirely theoretical,
learned out of books, and his appreciation of the importance of the human
spirit, vital to understanding emotional & behavioural
disturbances (mislabelled “mental” illness) is almost
non-existent. The next registrar Mark Schramm was a cigarette smoker as are many of the nursing staff.
Mary does not have "mood swings" or very
variable behaviour. As an open, sensitive and
vulnerable woman, she responds appropriately and sanely to the environment in
which she is placed and the stress to which she is subject. Mary is in touch
with and expresses a full range of all her feelings accordingly - such cannot
be said of any of the psychiatric consultants or registrars at the JOMH, none
of whom are nearly as open, tolerant, aware and as honest as Mary (and myself).
Mary was extremely restrained in JOMH considering how put upon and provoked she
was and her remonstrations and expressions of concern and disapproval were
relevant, appropriate and accurate, expressed non-violently in writing.
In fact there is the prevailing philosophy amongst
most staff in the entire mental health system that it is not acceptable for
patients to express any strong emotions at all and this oppressive, boring,
flat-line" approach is characteristic/indicative of their inability to
cope with and understand their own feelings, their rigid denial and their lack
of affect. Not one member of staff, doctors and nurses alike was able to deal
with and express a full spectrum of their own feelings - anger, pain, fear,
guilt and joy. At best they found enormous difficulty with at least two of
these crucial primary emotions. They also did not respond in a mature, open and
professional to critical comment and legitimate feedback but display the
characteristic malicious, vindictive and sullen spitefulness that we have
become accustomed to in dealing with guilty public servants here in Queensland,
especially police, prison officers, judges, magistrates, politicians and senior
public servants.
It is so easy to off-handedly mislabel and dismiss
my well founded critical observations and comment addressed to (but never
responded to) staff and management at both the JOMH and TPCH as
"paranoid" and "abusive". That is no doubt exactly how
Terry Lewis, the disgraced and jailed ex-Commissioner of Police described my
letters to him so many years ago in which I called him corrupt. In contrast
those with nothing to hide are always open, receptive and responsive and even
if our comments were untruthful and unfounded, they would be dealt with in a
concerned and professional manner. Their resolute refusal to even discuss the
issues raised by us, an entirely improper, arrogant and provocative response
has resulted in something simple and easy to resolve becoming the substance of
representations to the Director of Mental Health herself, the Minister for
Health and now this complaint to the Health Rights Commission.
As far as (2) above is concerned, our deeply held
religious beliefs could best be described as fundamental Christianity, entirely
consistent with CHRIST’s own teachings and example as
expressed clearly in the Bible. The psychiatrists at JOMH and to a lesser
extent at TPCH would no doubt have described CHRIST HIMSELF as delusional, a
term I would correctly use to describe their own obsessive, even fanatical
reliance upon the psychiatric model of human behaviour.
Mary has had no ecstatic, visionary or
hallucinatory experiences or revelations, does not hear voices in her head and
has never taken drugs except those prescribed for her and imposed upon her. Mary’s
beliefs originate from early childhood as a young Jewess in an entirely
natural, healthy way. As a teenager Mary turned away from her religion because
of the obvious greed, dishonesty and hypocrisy within her local synagogue - it
is no wonder she feels so strongly about most organised
religion and about the public health system where the same factors abound! She
returned to her faith about 20 years later (or 25 years ago) and is now a
courageous, dedicated, devout and fully committed Christian woman. Only a
self-deluded, misinformed, intolerant ignoramus could possibly conclude
otherwise.
Anyone who knows anything about Jewish people and
genuine Christians - I do, Yellowlees, Fama, Kar, Van der Hoef and Cooksley
clearly do not - realises that GOD is an ever present
part and central focus of their entire lives. By these spiritual amateurs'
criteria, all orthodox Jews, most Muslims and many Hindus and Buddhists would
have “over-valued, delusional” religious beliefs. In fact we would claim with
ample justification that none of the medical (or nursing) staff have the
necessary experience, understanding and discernment to make any relevant,
accurate or informed judgement in this regard.
Therefore these presumptuous, psychiatric upstarts
need to confine themselves to their own (very limited) area of expertise - the
obsessive preoccupation with censoring emotions and aggressively suppressing
symptoms (rather than dealing with and attending to underlying causes) through
the introduction into the human body of excessive amounts of dangerous, even
potentially lethal, chemical substances of highly dubious benefit or by passing
high voltage current through patients' brains. They do this mainly because they
simply don't understand themselves and therefore don't understand their
patients or their disturbances in thinking, feeling and behaving.
Psychiatrists presume to interfere in patients’
lives without the necessary real and relevant qualifications, experience and
competence nor any prerequisite, demonstrated dedication to, responsibility for
and awareness of their own health, emotional maturity and growth and without
the innate strength of spirit and necessary understanding of the issues of
human behaviour and emotional states. Without
exception the intolerable interferences of these misguided meddlers and
destructive drug dealers cause disastrous present and future consequences, many
more problems than the initial condition itself. The psychiatrists in general
and Yellowlees in particular certainly do have a
"heightened sense" of their own importance and a total
"disregard for normal rules" of society. They could try a reality
check by canvassing opinions from the general population at large and would
discover that they are treated with a certain measure of suspicion, dislike and
dismay at the power they wield and deserved derision at their eccentric, even
weird behaviour. Most psychiatrists do demonstrate a
marked "minimisation" and total "lack
of concern" for the effects of their own behaviour,
notably the disastrous impact this has on patients' welfare. Despite their
quite insane attempts to stop Mary believing in GOD using drugs, her beliefs
were in fact stronger by the effective persecution she suffered at the hands of
people overpaid to respect her rights and beliefs and care for her health. Mary
has no insight into her illness simply because she is not ill. To try to modify
the spiritual beliefs of someone who is not suffering from any ecstatic or
hallucinatory delusions or fanaticism is immoral, unacceptable, arrogant,
high-handed, dictatorial and illegal.
Many psychiatrists (especially those at JOMH and Yellowlees) believe that they are entirely right, refuse to
look at themselves and impose this grandiose
perspective and rigidity of thought violently upon other peoples' lives
(something we never do). This is symptomatic of a chronic paranoid delusional
disorder or psychosis, especially when their affective flattening, hostility
and malice is taken into account. If we really are mentally ill, why didn’t
they treat us as if we have an involuntary disability and not like a foe. In particular Fama and Yellowlees ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves and
the damage these two profiteering, psychopathic parasites have done over the
years to all those patients unfortunate enough to fall into their clutches is
an outrage and obscenity. They should fairly be treated as frauds and criminals
and would be jailed if they were not artificially protected by the power and
influence that their worthless qualifications, unearned wealth and undeserved
status affords them. We accordingly treat their
allegations, assertions and underlying motives with the gravest suspicion and
their conclusions should be resolutely ignored and treated with the contempt
they deserve.
Medication by their own admission failed to change
Mary’s religious, emotional or attitudinal beliefs at all, something I could
have told them months ago. This in itself indicates
that Mary is not and was not psychotic and does not lack insight at all - they
do! Mary was seen as more “settled” because they wanted to delude themselves
that they had actually effected some (imagined) improvement in her condition. In
fact Mary could no longer see any point in standing up for herself because she
had made it quite clear how she felt and why, verbally and in writing, and they
were completely unable or unwilling to listen and respond. In fact it is quite
fixated, delusional and insane to say that the five (5) months Mary so
courageously endured in the JOMH was in any way beneficial or necessary for her
health and well-being. Mary's entire presentation and demeanour
during the very brief conversation with Yellowlees by
his own description was
consistent with a normal, healthy, mature, balanced
and sensible woman with a commendable dedication to her Christian beliefs,
coping extremely well with no help and support in what constituted a hostile
and alien environment, under an enormous amount of pain and stress from within
and without.
We have never used the
expression or taken the view that the "rest of society was wrong" or
that we are "entirely right". From a religious point of view we take the position that CHRIST is
right and the world is wrong (and very lost indeed). From a behavioural
and social view we believe that the world is deteriorating rapidly in all
standards of decency, integrity, courage, health, selflessness, responsibility,
consideration and honesty. In fact the above statements attributed to us are
far more indicative of the psychiatric approach to human behaviour
and experience, founded upon their own guilt, flawed belief system and arrogant
discounting of all other views of life.
Finally, in relation to (3) above, suffice it to
say that our four (4) children, Elijah (21), Saul(18), Joshua (16) and Hannah
(11) have been removed from our exemplary care under a number of illegal
pretexts, the last of which was an indefensible NOFTT diagnosis (see Elijah
& Hannah” also on this web site). We have never been present or legally
represented in any of the court proceedings which determined their care and
custody and orders were taken out on three separate occasions in our absence. The
history is very complex - there has never been a case like it in the entire
history of this state - and the FOI files now being perused by the Children's'
Commissioner comprise thousands of pages. Many, many people throughout
The underlying presumption by all psychiatrists
involved except Diana Lange, which they concluded without any real knowledge of
the facts of our intricate situation, is that we are wrong and/or have somehow
imagined, fabricated or highly exaggerated details about our on-going disputes
with various government departments (notably DYFCC) and the criminal justice
system here in Queensland. In fact I began to write about corruption in the
police force, prison service, public mental health sector and children's'
services departments here in
Without extensive examination of the history of our
case, no competent psychiatrist could possibly conclude that our allegations of
corruption and systematic persecution by authorities are unfounded and somehow
illusory, imagined or fantasised and therefore
provide the basis for a paranoia diagnosis. Fama, Cooksley, Kar, Van Der Hoef and Yellowlees
have however all done precisely that and have neglected to investigate or even
consider whether what we claim has some basis in reality and chosen to make
decisions when not in possession of vital information and most of the facts. The
underlying assumption is that we must be wrong and there is considerable
evidence to support the conclusion that they deliberately and knowingly made a
false diagnosis so as to keep Mary detained and to discredit us both, just as
they have done repeatedly in the past. This at best constitutes professional
bias, incompetence, negligence and misconduct but the simplest and most obvious
explanation is that they are guilty of criminal corruption, either directly or
by default, as usual. Often a valuable insight into the reality of people's
true motives and actions is gained by looking at what they don't do - in this
case they made no effort whatsoever to speak to me or to find out the truth. To
find someone mentally ill on this basis is dangerous ground indeed for
something as serious as their restriction under the provisions of the Mental
Health Act.
To conclude that our allegations about corruption
and persecution are completely unfounded is not only improper and
unprofessional but also highly impertinent and presumptuous. We have been given
a unique insight into and unparalleled experience of the activities of the
police, prisons, mental health, magistracy, judiciary and other sections of the
criminal (in)justice system, of the public service and
parliament in this state in the natural course of our life and my work. The
ongoing dealings had with these instrumentalities over the past 20 years has
involved first hand, personal contact with senior echelons up to and including
the Directors-General or heads of several government departments (Police,
Prisons, Health, Families, Justice, Attorney-General's and Premier's), a
considerable number of government Ministers and members of opposition parties
and all Queensland Premiers, past and present.
As such the information we have so exhaustively and
unselfishly documented at our own expense should be taken seriously, listened
to and acted upon and of course would be in a system of government that even
remotely adhered to and valued the precepts of decency, morality, humanity,
justice, equity and truth. The fact that we have so obviously been persecuted
and shamefully mistreated for over 20 years is a clear and unequivocal
condemnation of all governments and their various instrumentalities in this
period. We certainly are not the only people without wealth, power or position
in this state to suffer these indignities. However our case is both remarkable
and unique because we don't accept their criminal misbehaviour
without complaint, we are not intimidated by their threats and continued
unlawful imprisonment, we don't resort to violence and we don't give up
fighting for our children.
Many psychiatric staff were
only children or adolescents when this covert conspiracy began anyway and most
are either seriously deluded and dangerously naive. They therefore maintain
convenient childish fantasies about reality and about colleagues, superiors and
senior public servants and other government officials. A considerable number,
usually the most senior with the most to hide and lose, are fully implicated
accessories who know or at least strongly suspect what is going on. In effect
they comply and collude with corrupt professional or political pressure
themselves. It is exactly this cowardly refusal to grow up and face the
appalling truth of what is really happening that allows corruption to take hold
and flourish as it has here in
Faithfully,
Michael & Mary Israel †
8) Letter to Wendy Edmond,
Queensland Minister for Health
Tuesday, July 23, 2002 9:15 PM
From: "michael
To: "Wendy Edmond" <[email protected]>
Your Letter 11th July referenced MI 102302
I showed
your reply to a friend and he reasonably described it as "stupid".
You have no
lawful excuse for evading the serious issues I raised about smoking in
hospitals in general and specifically about the unfair situation at the mental health unit at TPCH.
As is
usually the case in all institutional environments, the careful, considerate,
responsible, quiet, clean, tidy, active, aware and emotionally mature who leave
the place better than they find it are disadvantaged and discriminated against
whilst the selfish. loud, noisy, intrusive, inconsiderate,
rude, untidy, irresponsible, destructive and lazy who break and steal things
and leave the place in a mess are indulged. Only management who are like
the latter group could allow such an unfair and unjust situation to continue.
I did not ask
for a wordy reproduction of your press releases with its typical dishonest and
deceitful political posturing. I asked you to deal with my complaint with
due diligence as you are required to do under
legislation.
That is what
you are there for!!!
Your letter
is an insult and an affront as you deliberately avoided the substance of my
complaint and dishonestly tried to gloss over the simple essence of the
situation.
It is my
prayer and hopeful expectation that the GOD whom I serve afflicts you with a serious,
painful illness and delivers you into the hands of your own deplorable health
system. This might teach you a long overdue lesson in humility, honesty
and the unselfish concern for others.
Faithfully,
Michael Israel †
9)
To: Senator Kay Paterson Re Queensland Health Department
From: "michael
To: "Kay Paterson" <[email protected]>
Monday 10th
December in the year of our LORD 2001
To: Kay Patterson (Minister for Health)
As I am sure
you are well aware, the Commonwealth Government has overall responsibility for
the provision of health services in
I have
attached copies of two recent reports that we have exhaustively compiled about
the situation recently since our return from 10 years in
Faithfully,
Michael Israel †