Re: state-sponsored psych exams, SSI, anyone?

June 1, 2003

> Psychiatrists, it seems, suffer from a mass delusion that their abuses

> are not harmful, and in fact that they are helpful. I cannot quite

> believe that all psychiatrists are sadistic bastards... it does seem

> that they THINK they are helping. Sometimes they do help people (even a

> blind pig [with no sense of smell] finds a truffle sometimes), but it

> seems that this is the exception rather than the rule. Maybe a little

> compassion, and the recognition that people that are different are still

> deserving of respect and all of the civil rights that normal people

> have, will help. Not terribly likely, though.

Psychiatry has been corrupted in the same way that every other state

religion is corrupted by power.

Autistic people fare particularly badly under this creed -- our very

existance is a challenge to their theories.

" In loyalty to their kind, they cannot tolerate our minds,

In loyalty to our kind, we cannot tolerate their obstruction! "

Jefferson Airplane (my

tagline comes from one of their songs too)

Ride the Music

AndyTiedye

June 1, 2003

> I was unambitious because I did not want to go into management

I have been avoiding management for years, and will continue to do so.

The company I work at is a nice place to be an engineer,

and is very Aspie-friendly without consciously making an effort to do

so.

But they chew up managers. They couldn't pay me enough to take a

management position.

Ride the Music

AndyTiedye

June 2, 2003

> wrote:

> >I talk to people who were locked up or otherwise psychiatrized in the

> >'60s and '70s, and I look at what happened to me in the middle to late

> >'90s ('95-'99), and the thing all of us find frightening is the lack of

> >difference. In fact, one of the major criticisms I get online if I talk

> >about my experiences is, " You have to understand things were changed

> >since the '70s. " When I tell people I wasn't alive in the '70s, they

> >don't know what to think.

> Someone said yesterday that her father (who is in his

> mid 90s and in a nursing home) was refusing medication

> for depression and it was a shame nobody could make

> him take it. She said this was because, unfortunately,

> the laws had been changed so that it was almost

> impossible to force anyone to take medication. I said

> that was a good thing, given how forced drugging was

> so wildly abused whenever it was an option for those

> with power-over.

> But now I'm wondering, and perhaps you know the answer,

> . Is it truly " almost impossible " for anyone

> (e.g., family members) to force a " labeled " person to

> take " medication " these days?

It depends on the age, for one thing, and on the person's level of

declared competence as well. And also on what you mean by " force " .

I was locked up January through March of 1996 in one particular place

(before being transferred to a few others). I could only refuse *some*

meds, and only until they got my parents to sign a paper saying

otherwise. After that, they could do whatever they wanted. And the

only reason they couldn't do more was because I had one of those doctors

who was about as compassionate as they got at that place. Other doctors

had their patients on more involuntary meds, and I have no doubt if I'd

had a different doctor I'd have been on way more drugs. This doctor

prescribed as little as he could get away with while still looking like

he was doing his job (and thereby covering his ass). He's still my

shrink.

In 1997, I wanted to go off my drugs. My shrink at the time (different

one) told my parents that if I went off them, they should throw me out

on the street and learn what happens to people who don't take their

drugs. I got scared and took them. This isn't considered force, even

though it is.

In 2000, I was on the OASIS message board, where a mother's 12- or

13-year-old son had refused psych drugs for what sounded like very good

reasons. They put him in a mental hospital as a " consequence " and then

put him in solitary confinement for several days, presumably with all

the requisite torturing. His mom was pissed at him, but at nobody else

in the situation, and seemed to think this is what you get for refusing

meds. This isn't considered force, even though it is and even though he

probably *did* end up with them forced in the more traditional sense in

the end.

Also in 2000, I spoke with a parent who was giving Risperdal to his

child against his child's will. I talked to him about informed

consent. His response: " I am an ER nurse. I don't believe in informed

consent. " Which is a scary statement on what at least a fair amount of

ER nurses must be like if he was able to make a generalization like

that. (It would fit with many of those I have known though, including

the one who tried to give me Haldol when I was allergic to it.)

In 2002 I was hanging out at the Mental Health Clients Action Network.

A woman came in who'd been forcibly electroshocked *recently*,

sustaining a lot of brain damage as a result. Forced electroshock has

been illegal for a *long* time.

In addition to this, I keep hearing stories of forced drugging, whenever

I go to places like Support Coalition International's website and

mailing lists. (www.mindfreedom.org) So it seems it's still happening

out there.

I think that with things like conservatorship and declaring legal

incompetence, a lot can be accomplished too, that shouldn't be. That's

one reason I have a durable power of attorney form written up and

notarized, so that if I am ever declared incompetent, there are people

who would be able to refuse psych meds but (in the case of the

particular form I found) be unable to insist that I be euthanized or

refused *real* medicine. But that's only an individual safeguard, that

not everyone has the chance to get.

I've met several people on court-ordered IOC -- involuntary outpatient

commitment. The idea is they don't lock you up as long as you go in for

your injection every now and then. It takes a court hearing, but a lot

of courts don't really think highly of the opinion of crazy people.

There are people trying to make this a more widespread practice,

believing it to be more humane than physical institutions (and believing

that other people have the right to decide this for you if you're

considered crazy), but it's really a system of control similar to

institutions but in your own home.

Usually court-ordered medication tends to be neuroleptics, for whatever

reason.

I think a lot of this demonstrates that even in places where a person

has a legal right to refuse, there are many ways to take that right

away. Much more than law has to take place in order to prevent this

from happening. There are always either loopholes or ways to outright

break the law without getting caught (or with the law looking the other

way on purpose -- during my time around the police I've seen some really

scary attitudes toward crazy people, and not just me).

--

" I am stuck out of step, and out of place, wherever I go. Perhaps,

then, it is time I do my own dance. " - Brine

June 2, 2003

Hi, Sparrow. It's nice to see you posting here again ).

Re: state-sponsored psych exams, SSI, anyone?

> At 07:06 PM 5/31/03 -0700, wrote:

> >Has anyone ever had a state-sponsored psych exam when your SSI came up

> >for review?

>

> Yes, twice.

>

> >It'd be nice to know what to expect.

>

> I'm sorry to hear that you can't see a doctor who's familiar with you. I

> had to see strangers both times and it felt very intrusive, humiliating

and

> frightening.

>

> But on the bright side, it turned out well both times.

>

> The way the evaluations go, the doctor doesn't really have to know

anything

> about your diagnosis. What's most important is that they get a clear

> picture of your areas of impairment and how those impairments affect your

> day-to-day life.

>

> Some doctors will leave things open-ended and let you do most of the

> talking. Others will have a rigid structure they like to adhere to and

only

> want you to directly answer things they ask you.

>

> You want to try (as much as possible within whatever structure the doctor

> routinely uses) to let them know things like: have you ever worked before?

> what happened? do you have problems eating or getting enough food? Do you

> have problems getting dressed or getting dressed in a timely manner? Do

you

> have problems walking or other problems that make it difficult for you to

> get to places such as the grocery store or a workplace? Do you have

> difficulty communicating with others? What happens when you try to

> communicate? Does your disability cause any psychological problems such as

> depression or anxiety? What effects do the psychological problems have in

> your life? Do you have any cognitive difficulties such as problems

> remembering things or problems getting tasks in the proper order? How,

> specifically, do these cognitive difficulties affect your daily life?

>

> The important thing to keep coming back to is concrete examples of

> imapirment in your daily life. For example, they don't just want to know

> that you have trouble remembering things, they want to know that you lost

a

> job because you forgot to put away the chili and it costs the company $500

> as a result. Or that you lost a job because you habitually forgot to clean

> your uniform or bring your hard hat or whatever. In part, they want to

know

> about causes, but mostly they want to hear about results.

>

> If you do have depression or anxiety, don't be afraid to talk about it

> because sometimes doctors who don't understand your actual diagnosis will

> sign you off anyway because they decide that you have a crippling amount

of

> depression and/or anxiety. Above all, you want to be sure that they're

> clear about *why* you can't work and *what happens* when/if you do try to

> work.

>

> For a little personal perspective, here's a short bit about my two

> experiences:

>

> The first time was during a particularly low point in my life. I was

> homeless and also pregnant though I didn't know it at the time (but, of

> course, still full of those yucky hormones.) I went into the doctor's

> office and he asked me one question. I don't even remember what the

> question was now. For all I know, it might have been " how are you? " But I

> burst into tears and huge sobs and he handed me some tissues and told me

we

> were done. (He signed off on approval for me.)

>

> The second time was about a year ago. The doctor was very distant and even

> sat waaaaaaaaaay across the room from me which, for some reason, felt kind

> of disconcerting and even almost felt like he was disdaining me. He spent

> about an hour asking me things. I was lightly crying, but that's mostly

> because going to any mind doctor is automatically traumatic for me after

> having been in the psych system since 1971. I wasn't sobbing like the last

> time and I could easily talk through the tears.

>

> He asked me stuff like " what would you think I meant if I said 'still

> waters run deep'? " And " Why is it bad to tell a lie? " (My answer was that

> if you lie, people will eventually find out and then they'll never believe

> anything you say again. I wonder if that's the " right " answer or, if not,

> what is.) At one point he asked me to remember three words, something like

> " tree, garbage, freedom " and then about twenty minutes later he asked me

> what the three words were (I remembered them.) He asked me what I'd had

for

> dinner the night before. (I couldn't remember other than to say that I had

> beets at some point yesterday.) And he asked me what my plans for the

> future were. (I told him that I'd had so many disappointments that I

didn't

> dare to plan for the future any more.) (It struck me the next day that I

> had perfected the new-age principle of " living in the moment. " I couldn't

> remember what I did yesterday and I had no plans for tomorrow. As much as

> people talk about the importance of living in the moment, if someone

> actually does it, they'd be labelled dysfunctional!)

>

> I think maybe he asked me to repeat some numbers back to him. A lot of his

> question were standard IQ test stuff but nothing written, all oral

> (probably so he could also observe my affect.)

>

> I'd say to not worry, and to just go in and answer truthfully. From how

> you've described yourself, you'd be best off to just answer honestly and

> not try to sway things at all. I chose to be honest and I really didn't

> think I'd get approved but I was surprised when I did. I guess I come

> across as more impaired than I generally consider myself to be. The

> state-appointed SSI psych meeting is one time when society's judgements of

> our eccentricities runs in our favor!

>

> The only " trick " I might ever reccommend is to stay up the night before.

> The reason is that sometimes lack of sleep will make my symptoms more

> pronounced and more noticeable (and might do the same for you.) I never

> intentionally stayed up the night before but did because I was so

concerned

> about the meeting the next day. I do think it's important for the doctor

to

> see what you're like under stress. Going into his office at all is a

> stressor. If you add the stressor of not getting enough sleep the night

> before, he'll very clearly see the impairments and all you have to do is

> just be honest and sincere.

>

> Hope anything I've said is helpful and best wishes on your evaluation.

>

> (note that I've used words like " impairment " and " symptoms " in the sense

> the evaluator will and not to indicate that we're in any way lesser

beings.)

>

> Sparrow

>

June 2, 2003

wrote:

>

>> wrote:

>>

>>>I talk to people who were locked up or otherwise psychiatrized in the

>>>'60s and '70s, and I look at what happened to me in the middle to late

>>>'90s ('95-'99), and the thing all of us find frightening is the lack of

>>>difference. In fact, one of the major criticisms I get online if I talk

>>>about my experiences is, " You have to understand things were changed

>>>since the '70s. " When I tell people I wasn't alive in the '70s, they

>>>don't know what to think.

>

>>Someone said yesterday that her father (who is in his

>>mid 90s and in a nursing home) was refusing medication

>>for depression and it was a shame nobody could make

>>him take it. She said this was because, unfortunately,

>>the laws had been changed so that it was almost

>>impossible to force anyone to take medication. I said

>>that was a good thing, given how forced drugging was

>>so wildly abused whenever it was an option for those

>>with power-over.

>

>>But now I'm wondering, and perhaps you know the answer,

>>. Is it truly " almost impossible " for anyone

>>(e.g., family members) to force a " labeled " person to

>>take " medication " these days?

Here where I live it is very easy for them to force someone to take

drugs if medical staff believe the person is posing a risk to self or

others. No competency hearing is necessary just a couple of forms filled

out by any GP and an ambulance with or without police escort called.

Once at the mental hospital a review of the forms must be made within 72

hours but it is not at all hard for the psychiatrists to decide to

extend it for a week, month, 6 months or however long they deem necessary.

There are processes by which patients can appeal these orders but

anybody who has had ECT and/or been drugged senseless on antipsychotic

medications would know that it isn't exactly easy to follow through an

appeal process in that condition. Nor is it easy when severely depressed

and lacking in motivation even in the absence of real suicidal or self

injurious intent.

The other way they force people is by leaving their status as voluntary

but telling the patient (truthfully) that if they attempt to leave or

refuse treatment they will be " formed " . The easy way out of all this is

to not tell any doctor or nurse that you are having suicidal ideation

(depending on the doctor they probably do not need actual plan or intent

to execute these procedures) or give them any reason to think you cannot

look after yourself. Once in the system it isn't so easy to leave not

just for legal reasons but also because institutionalisation develops

rather quickly.

CZ

June 2, 2003

> Here where I live it is very easy for them to force someone to take

> drugs if medical staff believe the person is posing a risk to self or

> others. No competency hearing is necessary just a couple of forms filled

> out by any GP and an ambulance with or without police escort called.

> Once at the mental hospital a review of the forms must be made within 72

> hours but it is not at all hard for the psychiatrists to decide to

> extend it for a week, month, 6 months or however long they deem necessary.

Yes. This goes very much for my area as well.

> There are processes by which patients can appeal these orders but

> anybody who has had ECT and/or been drugged senseless on antipsychotic

> medications would know that it isn't exactly easy to follow through an

> appeal process in that condition. Nor is it easy when severely depressed

> and lacking in motivation even in the absence of real suicidal or self

> injurious intent.

Definitely.

> The other way they force people is by leaving their status as voluntary

> but telling the patient (truthfully) that if they attempt to leave or

> refuse treatment they will be " formed " . The easy way out of all this is

> to not tell any doctor or nurse that you are having suicidal ideation

> (depending on the doctor they probably do not need actual plan or intent

> to execute these procedures) or give them any reason to think you cannot

> look after yourself. Once in the system it isn't so easy to leave not

> just for legal reasons but also because institutionalisation develops

> rather quickly.

I found out at one point that I had been repeatedly and consecutively

legally certified without a hearing, when section 5250 of the California

welfare and institutions code says that I needed to be notified of my

right to a judicial review. I don't recall being notified of that

right, but even if I was, I would have known that staff laugh in your

face if you request an advocate. The thing is, I don't think *I* would

have been required to sign the form they supposedly delivered to notify

me.

And I don't recall any certification review hearing either:

" 5256. When a person is certified for intensive treatment pursuant

to Sections 5250 and 5270.15, a certification review hearing shall be

held unless judicial review has been requested as provided in

Sections 5275 and 5276. The certification review hearing shall be

within four days of the date on which the person is certified for a

period of intensive treatment unless postponed by request of the

person or his or her attorney or advocate. Hearings may be postponed

for 48 hours or, in counties with a population of 100,000 or less,

until the next regularly scheduled hearing date. "

" 5256.3. The person certified shall be present at the certification

review hearing unless he or she, with the assistance of his or her

attorney or advocate, waives his or her right to be present at a

hearing. "

I don't remember any of that, and I definitely don't remember waiving my

right to the hearings. But if they'd drugged me sufficiently they might

have got me to sign it, or they might have given it to me under the

guise of something else. Just like they got me to sign my Individual

Program Plan in the developmental services system by claiming it was " a

form you sign to show you were present at the meeting, " when really it

was supposed to verify that I'd read and agreed to the plan. (I can't

imagine what happens to people who can't *read*, except that I know I've

seen some screwed over by individual workers in this system by " taking

dictation " that wasn't really what the person had said.)

But I got a lot of that involuntary " voluntary " consent crap too.

--

" I try to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out. "

-Judge Harold T. Stone

June 2, 2003

That really sucks what you went through. I spent the best part of 6

years in psychiatric wards with very little home-time. The only things I

ever had to sign were " no self harm contracts " which were stupid and

meaningless since most of the reason I harmed myself at all was that I

saw no way out of a screwed up system and home was worse (due to abuse)

than hospitals so there wasn't anywhere else to go. I never got to sign

a consent form for any of the three courses of ECTs I had either. Those

left me with permanent damage to my short term memory and concentration

and there is no way in hell (given that I knew quite a lot about

psychiatric medicine before I ever ended up in a hospital) that I would

have signed consent for that if I had any choice.

CZ

wrote:

>

>>Here where I live it is very easy for them to force someone to take

>>drugs if medical staff believe the person is posing a risk to self or

>>others. No competency hearing is necessary just a couple of forms filled

>>out by any GP and an ambulance with or without police escort called.

>>Once at the mental hospital a review of the forms must be made within 72

>>hours but it is not at all hard for the psychiatrists to decide to

>>extend it for a week, month, 6 months or however long they deem necessary.

>

> Yes. This goes very much for my area as well.

>

>>There are processes by which patients can appeal these orders but

>>anybody who has had ECT and/or been drugged senseless on antipsychotic

>>medications would know that it isn't exactly easy to follow through an

>>appeal process in that condition. Nor is it easy when severely depressed

>>and lacking in motivation even in the absence of real suicidal or self

>>injurious intent.

>

> Definitely.

>

>>The other way they force people is by leaving their status as voluntary

>>but telling the patient (truthfully) that if they attempt to leave or

>>refuse treatment they will be " formed " . The easy way out of all this is

>>to not tell any doctor or nurse that you are having suicidal ideation

>>(depending on the doctor they probably do not need actual plan or intent

>>to execute these procedures) or give them any reason to think you cannot

>>look after yourself. Once in the system it isn't so easy to leave not

>>just for legal reasons but also because institutionalisation develops

>>rather quickly.

>

> I found out at one point that I had been repeatedly and consecutively

> legally certified without a hearing, when section 5250 of the California

> welfare and institutions code says that I needed to be notified of my

> right to a judicial review. I don't recall being notified of that

> right, but even if I was, I would have known that staff laugh in your

> face if you request an advocate. The thing is, I don't think *I* would

> have been required to sign the form they supposedly delivered to notify

> me.

>

> And I don't recall any certification review hearing either:

>

> " 5256. When a person is certified for intensive treatment pursuant

> to Sections 5250 and 5270.15, a certification review hearing shall be

> held unless judicial review has been requested as provided in

> Sections 5275 and 5276. The certification review hearing shall be

> within four days of the date on which the person is certified for a

> period of intensive treatment unless postponed by request of the

> person or his or her attorney or advocate. Hearings may be postponed

> for 48 hours or, in counties with a population of 100,000 or less,

> until the next regularly scheduled hearing date. "

>

> " 5256.3. The person certified shall be present at the certification

> review hearing unless he or she, with the assistance of his or her

> attorney or advocate, waives his or her right to be present at a

> hearing. "

>

> I don't remember any of that, and I definitely don't remember waiving my

> right to the hearings. But if they'd drugged me sufficiently they might

> have got me to sign it, or they might have given it to me under the

> guise of something else. Just like they got me to sign my Individual

> Program Plan in the developmental services system by claiming it was " a

> form you sign to show you were present at the meeting, " when really it

> was supposed to verify that I'd read and agreed to the plan. (I can't

> imagine what happens to people who can't *read*, except that I know I've

> seen some screwed over by individual workers in this system by " taking

> dictation " that wasn't really what the person had said.)

>

> But I got a lot of that involuntary " voluntary " consent crap too.

>

> --

> " I try to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out. "

> -Judge Harold T. Stone

>

June 2, 2003

wrote:

>

>>That really sucks what you went through. I spent the best part of 6

>>years in psychiatric wards with very little home-time.

>

> For me it was 4 years, with interspersed home time that was *exactly*

> like a psychiatric ward due to how my parents ran the house.

What fun. My father was very strict and controlling (apart from sexually

abusive) and my mother was very erratic, violent (more so when I was

smaller than her before she got scared that I would hit her back harder)

and into drugging her kids with all manner of things from an early age.

>>The only things I

>>ever had to sign were " no self harm contracts " which were stupid and

>>meaningless since most of the reason I harmed myself at all was that I

>>saw no way out of a screwed up system and home was worse (due to abuse)

>>than hospitals so there wasn't anywhere else to go.

>

> That's *exactly* the problem I had. I could either be at home, which

> was hell, or in a psych ward, which was also hell. And they wondered

> why I wanted to kill myself. Every time I tried to run away from either

> place, I'd just end up locked up.

Every time I ran away from either place I would end up shacking up with

some awful bloke and being used sexually to have a roof over my head and

that would quickly mess my head up and I would either voluntarily run

back to the psychiatric hospitals or take an overdose and wind up there

anyway. Youth refuges were no better.

CZ

June 2, 2003

> That really sucks what you went through. I spent the best part of 6

> years in psychiatric wards with very little home-time.

For me it was 4 years, with interspersed home time that was *exactly*

like a psychiatric ward due to how my parents ran the house.

> The only things I

> ever had to sign were " no self harm contracts " which were stupid and

> meaningless since most of the reason I harmed myself at all was that I

> saw no way out of a screwed up system and home was worse (due to abuse)

> than hospitals so there wasn't anywhere else to go.

That's *exactly* the problem I had. I could either be at home, which

was hell, or in a psych ward, which was also hell. And they wondered

why I wanted to kill myself. Every time I tried to run away from either

place, I'd just end up locked up.

> I never got to sign

> a consent form for any of the three courses of ECTs I had either. Those

> left me with permanent damage to my short term memory and concentration

> and there is no way in hell (given that I knew quite a lot about

> psychiatric medicine before I ever ended up in a hospital) that I would

> have signed consent for that if I had any choice.

I thankfully never got ECT, just the other varieties of brain-invasion

and torture.

--

Advertising Rule: In writing a patent-medicine advertisement, first

convince the reader that he has the disease he is reading about;

secondly, that it is curable.

June 2, 2003

>

>I live in California and have been on SSI/SSDI since 1997, for

>depression/PTSD/panic disorder. In that time, I have been reviewed

>twice, both times by the same shrink. (Whom I didn't recognize as being

>the same person until he told me---face blindness and poor short term

>memory strike again). I think that how often you get reviewed depends

>upon what your diagnosis is. If you have " no hope of recovery " , they

>don't review you very often. If you have a condition that is considered

> " curable " , like what I have, then you get grilled more often.

>Lori

>

I have been put into the " no hope of recovery " list. Because of

that, I don't ever have to go in for a review. The downside of that is

that Social Security destroyed all my medical records to save space. I

am having problems getting old student loans discharged, and I needed

those records to proove my disability.

June 2, 2003

> wrote:

> >I think a lot of this demonstrates that even in places where a person

> >has a legal right to refuse, there are many ways to take that right

> >away.

> Thanks, , for answering my question in such detail.

> Now that you mention it, I remember my psych-survivor

> friend in Vermont telling me a while ago that she was

> advocating for someone there who was under one of

> those " you can be free if you let us give you shots "

> court-order regimes. <shudder>

One of the people I met who was under such an order was in Vermont. I

met her while visiting a friend there.

--

" Each time, place, and culture makes its own rules for how to be a model

citizen. Being a loner usually means smashing all those rules, simply by

breathing. " -Anneli Rufus

June 2, 2003

>

>In 1997, I wanted to go off my drugs. My shrink at the time (different

>one) told my parents that if I went off them, they should throw me out

>on the street and learn what happens to people who don't take their

>drugs. I got scared and took them. This isn't considered force, even

>though it is.

>

This sounds so typical of pshrinks. They seem to think that the

solution to every problem is drugs. Medical techniques, such as surgery

have come a long way, but the psychiatric industry is still in the dark

ages. I remember when I was going through the diagnostic process to get

my disability, the pshrinks had no clue what was wrong with me. Their

solution was to use me as a guinea pig, trying this drug and that drug

on me. Finally, when I started having all kinds of negative reactions

to their potions, I quit taking them, and they respected my decision.

In the end, it was a form of autism that was causing my " impairment " ,

and they had to admit that drugs weren't the answer.

June 2, 2003

At 08:54 AM 6/2/03 -0400, Rakus wrote:

>Hi, Sparrow. It's nice to see you posting here again ).

This is one of very few non-abusive, non-flaming spectrum lists out there.

I'm not much of anywhere but here at this point.

I feel like I've taken a lot of " online battering " these last few years and

feel pretty burned out by it and since 90% of where I've been these last

few years has been spectrum-related places, I have a hard time not

associating the emotional battering with the spectrum community and that

makes me feel understandably bitter and defensive and a bit hypervigilant.

I feel like I have " wrong planet - wrong planet syndrome " or something

after all that -- just as alienated among " my kind " as in the world at large.

But this list is one of two spectrum lists where I don't feel like I was

ever attacked or flamed or harmed in any way. (And I haven't been on the

other list long enough or posted often enough to really have an honest

opinion of it.)

So ... I'm back. Feeling like an alien among aliens but still stupidly

blundering towards the light anyway, hoping I'm not a moth struggling to

get to the flame that will ultimately destroy me. The desire .. the

*instinct* for community is strong in me. It will probably be my downfall.

If it hasn't already been. But it *is* good to see familiar " faces " again.

I feel like an ever-fading shadow.

Sparrow

June 2, 2003

At 10:10 PM 6/2/03 +0800, Antryg Windrose wrote:

> wrote:

>> That's *exactly* the problem I had. I could either be at home, which

>> was hell, or in a psych ward, which was also hell. And they wondered

>> why I wanted to kill myself. Every time I tried to run away from either

>> place, I'd just end up locked up.

>

>Every time I ran away from either place I would end up shacking up with

>some awful bloke and being used sexually to have a roof over my head and

>that would quickly mess my head up and I would either voluntarily run

>back to the psychiatric hospitals or take an overdose and wind up there

>anyway. Youth refuges were no better.

When I ran away, I'd always end up with some guy or be helped to run away

by a guy (I married one of them briefly and that's how I finally got out)

but I don't really remember the sex messing with my head so much as the

power dynamic games the guys would play with me and the insults they would

use to try to get me to stay with them.

Sparrow

June 2, 2003

> I have been put into the " no hope of recovery " list. Because of

> that, I don't ever have to go in for a review. The downside of that is

> that Social Security destroyed all my medical records to save space. I

> am having problems getting old student loans discharged, and I needed

> those records to proove my disability.

While I understand why that could be a problem, I sometimes wish my

medical records would be destroyed. Or selectively destroyed so that

the lies about me that permeate some of them would stop coming back to

haunt me.

--

" Humans aren't logical. They just think they are. " -Chuen Chan

June 2, 2003

wrote:

>I think a lot of this demonstrates that even in places where a person

>has a legal right to refuse, there are many ways to take that right

>away.

Thanks, , for answering my question in such detail.

Now that you mention it, I remember my psych-survivor

friend in Vermont telling me a while ago that she was

advocating for someone there who was under one of

those " you can be free if you let us give you shots "

court-order regimes. <shudder>

Jane

June 3, 2003

Logan danced around singing:

>I have been put into the " no hope of recovery " list. Because of

>that, I don't ever have to go in for a review.

Oddly enough, I was on the " no hope of recovery " list straight off when I

was a kid -- " permanent " developmental delay with persistent organ defects

and severe asthma. Yet I just got the mail and discovered that I was

selected for the short-form financial review this year. (I hope that this

is all they want, that they won't request bank account stuff later on down

the road.)

I have to say that what is going through my mind right now is " I'm already

breaking under the stress I have, I don't need *more* right now, arrrgghhh! "

DeGraf ~*~ http://www.sonic.net/mustang/moggy

June 3, 2003

At 11:07 PM 6/2/03 -0700, DeGraf wrote:

> Logan danced around singing:

>>I have been put into the " no hope of recovery " list. Because of

>>that, I don't ever have to go in for a review.

>

>Oddly enough, I was on the " no hope of recovery " list straight off when I

>was a kid -- " permanent " developmental delay with persistent organ defects

>and severe asthma. Yet I just got the mail and discovered that I was

>selected for the short-form financial review this year.

I've been certified " totally and permanently disabled " from when I first

got accepted, yet I've been up for review. They will review anyone if they

come up in the computer, either through luck of the draw or because

something looked fishy in the paperwork.

Sparrow

June 3, 2003

>I just got the mail and discovered that I

>was selected for the short-form financial

>review this year. (I hope that this is all

>they want, that they won't request bank

>account stuff later on down the road.)

Hi and all,

I've had this review also. The thing they are looking for here is if

you have any other source of income. Make sure you say no if they ask

you if you have made any money or gotten any financial help, gifts, etc.

from anyone. Bring your 3 latest bank statements with you, and go to an

ATM machine and get a mini statement to show the current amount left in

your account. Make sure you take out any " extra " money first.

If you get any checks from work or as gifts, sign them over to a friend

you trust or go to a check cashing place so there is no record of you

having any extra income.

Lori, who thinks the amount of money they spend " checking up " on us

would be moe than enough to cover our payments and just leave us alone.

June 3, 2003

Force can be impossible to resist. In this country, very few doctors understand

aspergers and certainly could not recognize it in females. i know a woman here

who is dxd schizophrenic but strongly believes she has aspergers. she is forced

to take medication which leaves her confused and often unable to function. the

pressure that is used to prevent her coming off meds is that if she does, she

will be declared an unfit mother and lose custody of her child. she has

resigned herself to taking meds until her child is 16, another 8 years. the

meds not only rob her of her faculties, they isolate her. when she is confused,

she is mocked by members of the community. some of the mockers consider

themselves christians and they all consider themselves superior to vanessa. it

makes me sick.

Subject: Re: state-sponsored psych exams, SSI, anyone?