Mental Health Hearing

They approved ECT for Sue. 12 treatments to be completed by 17/4/2009 all of my concerns and I were basically dismissed. None of my concerns were deemed "relevant."

When i asked whether the main doctor (who had singed off on this order) Dr Chenoworth had physically examined Sue or had made his diagnose via case notes. I was told that it wasn't relevant whether he has physically looked at Sue. Pardon me but there is a big difference between physically looking at someone and making a judgements based on paperwork.

They said that her "condition was life threatening due to weight loss over the last 10 months of around 50 kilos." I did point out that she has only been sick for 5 months and that Dr Fraser (the staff doctor where she lives) had Sue on a very strict diet because at one point she had weighed 130 kilos. I was told that wasn't the relevant either. Excuse me it is relevant when part of her weight loss was done under the guidance of her practitioner as a health issue and had nothing to do with her current "depressive" state. She has lost weight in the last 5 months but not 50 kilos.

Actually she has put on weight in the last 6 weeks between my visits to her. What happened to truth, i don't want fabrication and misleading information used to pursue the ECT treatment plan. But hey it was.

They also said that Sue was catatonic. "appearing mentally stupefied, unresponsive, and motionless, or almost so; seemingly unaware of one's environment. http://define.com/catatonic" Sue was meant to attend the hearing and when Dr Kim Newnham was asked why Sue wasn't at the hearing she said: "that Sue had to be medicated because of her aggressive behaviour and that Sue was throwing chairs around the room since this morning:" Doesn't sound like she motionless and catatonic to me sounds like she's really angry to me but hey what would i know i'm only her sister.

The most annoying thing about this hearing is the total lack of concerns for what ECT did to Sue last time and how it affected her ability to function. My concerns around this were dismissed by someone asking in a very judgmenetal tone: "And just how long is it since you've seen your sister? How dare they assume that i don't visit. Cause that was the tone they used. I told them only a few days ago on the 23rd of January. That i was aware of her state and i was concerned but i don't believe in ECT being given to people with intellectually disabilities." I asked the rude lady "had she visited Sue? Or looked in on Sue?" She didn't answer. I was told there was no other option bare ECT. I said "why not try medication for angry people. I was told they had tried various medication. I said i was very well aware of what medication had been tried on Sue and all of them were solely for depression and mood disorders why not try an alternate medication for anger/psychosis i was told ECT was the only option. That they would not consider any other option.

Why not if only trail it for a week just to see. Nope I was dismissed, all my concerns about Sue were dismissed or I was told were not relevant. The bitch in me hopes one day these people will have to face a hearing like this and be told there irrelevlnt and that their concerns are not relevant and then be dismissed in the cold rude manner that i was.

Shock Treament battle (Again)

Ok, just a brief post more info later. Sue hasn't been well lately. She isn't toileting, she isn't talking, she has very strange hand movement, and a gaiety walk and she seems to have some hallucination happening as well. As she appears to be seeing stuff that isn't there, she gets a fixed look on an empty room. This has been going on for about 5 months. I have seen here go through this twice before, the last time they gave her ECt (shock treatment) and it impaired her ability to function in the world and her ability to learn new skills.

Yesterday she was sent to James Fletcher by her Dr at Kanangra Dr. Fraser to be assessed for more shock treatment. In my conversations with Eric he has told me he's not overly concerned about what the shock treatment will do to her functionality he's more concerned about her well being now. He said she is at the maximum amount of anti depressants and mood stabiliser that she can tolerate. I said to him doesn't that kind of give weight to my opinion on what is wrong with Sue at the moment and that she is angry and has shut down, that she isn't depressed. He said that it is more of an indication of sever depression. We disagree on this. I think Sue got really mad and just shut down. You don't treat anger with ECT.

Anyway she's been assessed by a Dr Kim Newnham at James Fletcher and apparently the request for shock treatment goes in to hearing today. I've left two messages for Dr. Newnham to call me prior to her assessment of Sue but she has not returned my calls. She did ask a nurse Sujatha to call me and let me know that Sue was being assessed as needing shock treatment. Coward, also it could be viewed as excluding the one person who is opposed to the treatment plan, after all that's how they got to give her shock treatment before buy not letting me know about the hearings at the Mental Health Tribunal. It seems James Fletcher maintains a policy of excluding those opposed to their plans.

So this morning i have to ring the Mental Health Tribunal to find out what time the hearing is so i can put my views across. fingers crossed i can get the information i need.

Also just a side note i found it a little disturbing that on the answering machine at the Metal Health Tribunal that they have as part of their message info on what to do for "Emergency shock treatment orders" outside of business hours of the tribunal. I don't understand how ECT could be an emergency situation. Surely it can wait till the morning and the hearing process. It's scary. Just plain scary what is happening to people with mental health disorders.