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.