What is this called? Can I call it inadmissiable evidence?

[Orba]

I asked for more facts,
I need 3
1) Do you have a history of not taking your prescribed meds? (please correct your letter "(where I go to a designated pharmacy to have someone watch me take meds)", Can you Say medication - ? - I thought you could. )

Yes I have a history of non-compliance. However this shouldn't matter, because I am not asking to be de-certified. I am asking to have my status as a certified patient transferred over to Toronto.

2) Are you a danger to others if you don't take them?

According to my psychiatrist, yes I am. But note that this shouldn't matter, because I am not asking to be able to stop taking medication. I am asking for my file to be transferred to Toronto so someone over there can watch me take it.

3) If yes, How much of a danger?

I don't know. YOu will have to ask my psychiatrist. Again, this question is irrelevant. How much of a danger I am when I don't take medication has no bearing on whether the law allows me to move to another province.

[Orba]

For 2 and 3 there, potential self harm is implicit in "certified", which is enough for the system to make a patient's decisions for him or her--forever in some cases, I might add.

If what you say is true, then the system should get to make all kinds of decisions for me, from what kind of jobs to get to what guys I want to sleep with. But the reality is not the case. I apparently do have some say in how certain aspects of my life are to be run. This leads me to believe that the system does not get to make all decisions of my life for me.

[jmervyn]

I still think a letter is your worst option unless you either are not allowed to address the board or would look worse addressing it. It comes across as a declamatory statement, which can easily be twisted if indeed there's unsavoury motivations on the part of your shrink.

Yet nowhere in the discharge conditions did it specify a particular pharmacy. It only says I need to take medications.

I noticed that there's an option of having someone officially witnessing you taking your meds. I think that's definitely something to explore, particularly if you have been unwilling or disinterested in similar obedience to an ordered medication regimen. <Voluntarily> requesting that option pretty much cuts your psychiatrist's balls RIGHT off, because it inadvertently makes a tidy little statement directly to the board. You're stating like a slap in the face that you distrust him, resent him, and think he's not actually got your best interests at heart, so much so that you'd rather have the more punitive situation of being treated like a child than continue under his care.

Personally, I think that's a fantastic option, if you really feel like your shrink is the problem. How can he possibly protest your willingness to be under an even harsher control, simply to get away from him? It states to the board in so many words that he's a gobshyte and you're pretty much desperate to get him off your arse.

[BobCox2]

For 2 and 3 there, potential self harm is implicit in "certified", which is enough for the system to make a patient's decisions for him or her--forever in some cases, I might add.

I'm not so worried about self harm.

Masochists have rights too.

[stillman]

Yet nowhere in the discharge conditions did it specify a particular pharmacy. It only says I need to take medications.

That's good news. I'm just saying that a move is still a big deal to those involved in your care, requiring plenty of back and forth between them, plus paperwork. They'll want to know an awful lot, which is why I think you should have answers ready.

What hypotheticals do you speak of?

I don't want to attack your letter like I do on Wattpad, but you talk about what they are or aren't allowed to do based on what they've previously let you do. I wish I knew more specifics like the higher-ups, but they're allowed to enforce A LOT of control over the life of a certified patient. And they can't just take your word for it; they have to dig through your medical records and go by the information in it. This is why I think your best bet is to see a social worker because they deal with the setup of life outside the hospital. I believe you have one assigned who deals with your case. They'll have concrete answers far better than anything I could tell you. Another great resource for answers is your family, as they would have had many discussions with your health team.

"Besides, the fact I am allowed to live out in the community is proof that my psychiatrist already concedes I am stable enough. Otherwise I would be in the hospital."

This is an example of the hypotheticals I mentioned. They may think and conclude differently. Your presentation comes off as overly defensive and demanding, while there's more helpful stuff in there about how well you've conducted yourself.

"Besides, the physician can only recommend that a patient live at home. He cannot force the patient to live at home."

I'm not so sure. They can apply a lot of force over where someone must stay, at least in my province.

Also, you claim that the system has more power over me than indicated. Pray tell, what is this power you speak of and does it have a limit?

From what I've seen, there is no limit. It's different for each patient depending on concerns over self harm. They let patients have as much freedom as they deem safe, but the system will always watch over them or set up conditions. Where I work, many patients aren't allowed to leave the hospital until properly discharged by the system. This can last months or lead to an indefinite stay. And we're talking harmless elderly folk.

If what you say is true, then the system should get to make all kinds of decisions for me, from what kind of jobs to get to what guys I want to sleep with. But the reality is not the case. I apparently do have some say in how certain aspects of my life are to be run. This leads me to believe that the system does not get to make all decisions of my life for me.

That's true, but it's their call. They could make all your decisions if you were in a different boat, like if you were a dementia patient. I don't know the specifics for you, but you're in a rough spot for sure.

I noticed that there's an option of having someone officially witnessing you taking your meds. I think that's definitely something to explore,

I believe the "options" are to show up at the pharmacy or return to the hospital (where the drugs will be forced in one way or another). I know you're a big fan of socialism, jmervyn, but the heroism can get pretty dark sometimes.
Kidding.

I'm not so worried about self harm.

The gallant heroes are, and they call all the shots.

Masochists have rights too.

...until they land in the system.

Orba, you make many good logical points, and I hope it all goes well. But I wouldn't tell them what they're allowed to conclude. Instead, maybe a more neutral approach would look better. I just fear they will be required to know the details you want to keep private. Much privacy is lost in the system. Sure, there's confidentiality, but you're still stuck with paid strangers who document everything about you. If you're at home with your parents, that's also a big deal to them, as the parents are, in a way, doing some of the supervision the health workers would want. "Virtual beds". There is always a big focus on family as a resource.

[BobCox2]

As jmyrvin pointed out, asking about inadmissible evidence looks paranoid vs pointing out your own opportunities.

This threads admissibility probably depends on your access to the IP it's posted from BTW. .

This is the off topic forum and here is a better case
Can the DEA Hide a Surveillance Camera on Your Land?
A case that began with reports of suspicious activity in northeast Wisconsin forest land last spring may be headed for the US Supreme Court. That's because a US district court judge ruled in the case last fall that it was okay for the DEA to enter the rural property without a warrant and install surveillance cameras that were used to help convict five members of a family on charges they were growing marijuana.

[jmervyn]

I believe the "options" are to show up at the pharmacy or return to the hospital (where the drugs will be forced in one way or another). I know you're a big fan of socialism, jmervyn, but the heroism can get pretty dark sometimes.
Kidding.

Well, that's why I referenced Sandy Hook earlier. The sort of horrible shyte that mental health professionals get up to given their potential for abusing power is fairly well enumerated in the history of New York - to the point that it is the stuff of horror movies. Showing up at the pharmacy seems like a great option to me, since Orba's not only got a history of slacking on his regimen but feels the shrink is in opposition - it gives him both the freedom and the responsibility, with "incarceration" being the penalty for fecking up.

I'm thinking about Orba's grounds for this, and hoping he's able to clearly analyse the situation - he strikes me as feeling paranoid about his shrink's motivations, but as you know I'm a BIG supporter of feeling rightfully paranoid. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you, &c. &c. but it's also hard to see straight when it's you in the foxhole.

Of course, we only have Orba's scenario to extrapolate from, and I do know that everyone can start to view a person in authority as having a personal grudge when they prevent or disallow something. Sometimes they're truly trying to harm or exploit their subordinate/victim, sometimes they're truly trying to look out for them, and many times they're just being arbitrary or simply an outright arsehole. Hopefully we can discount the arbitrary nature of Orba's shrink, but it's not out of the question.

This is the off topic forum and here is a better case

Aren't these servers based in Germany or Britain? I don't know if there's actually a legal issue if they're just observing our discussion, since it's not sealed - however, if there's a legal challenge they would have to prove Orba is the real Orba, which they probably can't do.

[BobCox2]

Aren't these servers based in Germany or Britain? I don't know if there's actually a legal issue if they're just observing our discussion, since it's not sealed - however, if there's a legal challenge they would have to prove Orba is the real Orba, which they probably can't do.

Speaking of Freking up - you just did and you were not misinformed - my nested quotes confused you though.

[jmervyn]

Speaking of Freking up - you just did and you were not misinformed - my nested quotes confused you though.

I'm easily confused. Let's lighten this thread up:

[LozHinge the Unhinged]

Bleakly hilarious!