BEYOND THE CROCODILE TEARS.
(Comments on article by Anne Atkins)
Gurli Bagnall
“…it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental
importance, that justice should not only be done,
but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”
Lord Hewart
Rex v Sussex
Someone once said, “Justice? Who’s talking about justice? We’re talking about the law!” but in the case of Kay Gilderdale who assisted her daughter to die, compassion and common sense prevailed. Justice was done and seen to be done, and the over-zealous prosecution and persecution of Kay which had compounded the suffering, did at least receive a slap on the wrist.
Along with the international ME community, I heaved a sigh of relief that this was so.
This essay was generated by the anger I felt on reading Anne Atkins’ article published in MailOnline 31 January, 2010.
It presented an argument which can best be described as hypocritical, patronizing, ignorant, vengeful and simplistic to the point of being nonsensical.
Everyone has the right to air their views as long as they do no harm. One would expect Anne who claims to be governed by her religious principles, to be truthful at the very least but instead she displays a disrespect for the beliefs of others as unworthy of consideration. In doing so, she shows herself to be both arrogant and foolish. This is compounded by the fact that she tries to stifle differing views by arguments that are fiction from beginning to end.
At the same time, I reluctantly confess to feeling some sympathy for her. It is hard to escape the thought that she has been exploited – taken as an ill-informed person easily led by a strong personality and used for that person’s nefarious purposes. Is she shocked at the thought that this person bears ill-will towards a vulnerable, desperately ill section of the international community?
In every word she wrote, I saw Simon Wessely. From the miraculous cures and case histories she presented I can well understand that “her own family has known the curse of” depression and possibly other mental disorders. However, nothing in her article concerned the neurological disease, Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME).
Knowing the methods of psychiatrist, Simon Wessely, all I can say to Anne is that if her brother, Shaun, was genuinely cured by him, then it was definitely not ME for, contrary to his claims, Wessely repeatedly demonstrates his lack of expertise in that field.
While expressing her admiration for Kay’s years of devotion to her daughter, she then pointed the finger at all of her supporters for being “gung-ho” about the law and made it clear that the court’s decision was wrong. The impression one is left with, is that had the decision been Anne’s to make, Kay would now be in prison. The hypocrisy was sickening.
In challenging the verdict, Anne muddled her way between the laws of the land and the laws of what I presumed is her religion. In regard to the former, she showed herself once again, to be ill-informed and in regard to the latter, she attempted to impose her personal intolerance and fanaticism upon the rest of us who have our own beliefs which are no less valid than hers.
The law is generally presented in terms of black and white; shades of grey are not permitted. All too often a prosecution is not so much about justice as it is about revenge – but not necessarily for the victim of the crime. The victim of crime such as rape and grievous bodily harm, often receives little, if any, consideration at all. The revenge is in regard to a person who has had the temerity – whether justified or not – to act against a man-made law.
Kay was most assuredly innocent but there was a case to answer so at whose door should charges have been laid?
Many in the ME world have had to make a similar choice to those who were trapped in the uppers floors of the twin towers when the planes struck.
http://www.twin-towers.net/tt_video.htm
Their choice was to either die by leaping into space or face incineration. What would Anne have done? What would the Rabbi she consulted, have advocated?
The ME sufferer who takes his or her own life in most cases may have faced a slow, painful death due to medical neglect compounded by inappropriate and dangerous treatment. To make matters worse, the denial of state benefits (on medical advice) is common and becoming more so in some places. Who will pay the rent, do the shopping, the housework, prepare meals and clean up the wet and soiled bed?
What gems of “wisdom” can Anne offer?
Someone is answerable for every so-called suicide of an ME sufferer. I believe charges belong at the feet of the exploiters and purveyors of false information; of those who pull the strings of the easily influenced such as Anne. I further believe they committed murder by design, with malice aforethought…and from a distance.
Also from a distance they watched the hounding of Kay which made a mockery of the contention that Britain is a civilized democracy.
The judge who sat on her case, goes some distance to restoring a measure of faith and to him, I say: Thank you.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article7002405.ece
Incredibly governments, elected by the people to care for the efficient and fair administration of the state, sit on the sidelines and do nothing.
How foolish it would be for us to ignore this behaviour accepting instead the words of (quote): “the smart commentators and senior politicians, who will exude an air of experienced superiority over the naïve and gullible who dare to give the time of day to anything the politicos sneeringly call a conspiracy theory. It is the new insult from the established classes. It is also bad journalism and politics.” (Norman Baker MP, from the Preface of his book: “The Strange Death of David Kelly”.)
Can any deny there is the stench of decaying rat amongst the debris of political corruption when taking into account the secret file on ME held in the UK with Medical Research Council (MRC) involvement? It is to be held unopened until the year 2071, and if anything points to governmental corruption and complicity, that does. What are they hiding?
http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/The-MRC-secret-files-on-ME.htm
At least one reason is clear; we’ve seen it all before with the deliberate exposure of military personnel to nuclear fallout, Agent Orange and a variety of chemicals which contributed to the Gulf War Illnesses, to name but a few. Future compensation payments are less likely to bankrupt the country if most of the victims are dead.
It is all relevant to the ME situation; strange that Anne somehow forgot to mention any of these matters.
A good example of justice v revenge, is the sway Roy Meadow had over the British courts for many years. Common sense was lost under the weight of his vindictiveness towards women, a situation that most judges seemed to be more than willing to allow.
How so many of them found Roy Meadow’s evidence of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy – a disorder he invented – more credible than the distressed, innocent and grieving women they sentenced to prison for murder of an infant, highlights judiciary prejudice at its worst. Meadow did eventually pay a price for his years of arrogance, stupidity and abuse of power, but it was nothing compared to the price paid by his victims.
http://www.fassit.co.uk/sir_roy_meadow.htm
The Evening Standard (London) published an article by David Cohen, on January 23, 2004 . it was entitled: He Doesn't Like Women, Says Ex-Wife.
Quote: “Gillian Paterson, the former wife of Roy Meadow, buried her head in her hands, then looked up, her face screwed in anguish.
’It's tragic,’ she said. ‘My heart goes out to those mothers - to lose your children and then be accused of killing them…I wish somebody could have stopped him.’
She went even further. ‘Roy is a misogynist’, she said baldly. ‘I don't think he likes women….although I can't go into details, I'm sure he has a serious problem with women.’"
Apart from the Gilderdale verdict, Anne clearly holds authority in high regard. Where, I wonder, does she stand on the Meadow issue? Does it make any difference to her that there are still an unknown number of women in prison who were/are victims of a psychologically unbalanced individual? Would she describe protesters of this situation as having a gung-ho attitude to the law?
The authorities are made up of a group of fallible – in some cases even criminal – people. If we as voters allow them to continue to ride rough-shod over us and not demand their accountability, then we deserve all we get. Public debate clears the path for progress and those who would stifle it as Anne has attempted to do, must face the consequences.
Ask the question: When in medical history, has there been an anti-medical movement as large and as angry as the one we now see? The answer is: never. This is unprecedented; unheard of. The ME community is doing all it possibly can, but those who suffer it are generally very ill; the rest of society soon forget, believing that this could never happen to them.
Most of us could quote several cases of injustice and Anne’s article brought such thoughts racing through my mind. If indeed Simon Wessely, his merry men and adoring women, had had a finger in this particular pie, they really scraped the bottom of the barrel.
This essay is not about Wessely but since the toe of his boot is apparent throughout, he does require a mention. I confine my comments to the following. From observation of him over the years, it is hard to say where his expertise lies. Certainly it is not in the neurological field in which he is meddling. He sees normal human reactions and emotions as mental disorders and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) a treatment for physical diseases. He refuses to discuss research and genuine scientific findings; does he have the knowledge and understanding to do so? Perhaps not.
He excels in compiling questionnaires for “diagnostic” purposes but on examination, it is not difficult to see that they are designed to produce a desired result. If that ploy does not work, then as he explains (in the British Medical Journal), the answers are “adjusted for confounding factors”. See the following quote:
BMJ 2001;323:473-476 ( 1 September )
Prevalence of Gulf war veterans who believe they have Gulf war syndrome: questionnaire study
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/323/7311/473
Quote: “We examined factors that could potentially be associated with a belief in having Gulf war syndrome, such as number of exposures reported, number of vaccines received, and knowing other people with Gulf war syndrome. We adjusted for confounding factors that had the potential to distort the results such as education, rank, whether serving in the army at the time of the questionnaire, and health outcomes, including distress, fatigue, physical symptoms, and physical functioning, that may have influenced individual's beliefs and behaviour.”
If seeking a diagnosis, my advice is to give Professor Simon Wessely a wide berth.
Wessely’s main strength lies in his gift of the gab but his memory often lets him down and contradictions abound. A good example is that of the type of person most likely to be affected by ME or, as he prefers, chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Once it was said to be a disorder suffered by hysterical women, then it became known as the Yuppie Flu which afflicted young, wealthy, up-and-coming go-getters. They were hard to convince, so Wessely’s attention moved laterally to the lower socio-economic group which are also blamed for being the most vulnerable to Gulf War Illnesses. Not so, say those still surviving – be they general, captain, chaplain or medical personnel.
Wessely has produced a new vocabulary sufficient to compile his own dictionary. The speed with which his bleating followers have availed themselves of these words and terms would be hilarious if they did not deliberately put them to harmful us – as indeed was the clear intention.
Mention has already been made of a secret file which must remain sealed until the year 2071.
http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/The-MRC-secret-files-on-ME.htm
This affords Wessely and his ilk the official protection they need to continue the abuse of seriously ill people; Wessely is a person Anne admires.
Leaving aside the crocodile tears, the hypocrisy, the accusing wagging finger and a whole range of inconsistencies, there are still many aspects of her article that do not ring true and do her no credit. Having made her own judgements and comparisons, I make no apology for doing likewise.
Anne offered unsolicited advice on how to deal with a loved one’s request for assistance with suicide under similar circumstances to those which Kay endured. She recommends a reply such as: “I can’t darling. It is a very serious crime.”
It is not the reluctance to act upon such a request that offends; that is understandable. It is the reasoning – the justification for denying it.
Anne made no secret of the fact that her son suffered undiagnosed Asperger’s syndrome, from a young age. He had been (quote) “persuaded he was a freak, unable to fit in and a constant nuisance to teachers who bullied him ceaselessly to conform.”
Considering later developments, I wondered if he, at the age of ten, had had the support of his mother.
I wondered if the little boy who had climbed onto a roof with view to killing himself by jumping, had felt comforted by the word “darling”. Had it softened the blow to a child in knowing his mother loved him less and considered him less worthy, than a poorly defined and ill-conceived man-made law? Somehow I doubt it.
I went through the article again hoping to see reference to her defence of her son. Did she storm into the headmaster’s office and read the riot act? Did she drag the offending teachers from their classrooms and tell them in no uncertain terms, to desist; to stop the bullying? Did she put her arms around her boy and tell him she loved him and he was not alone? Or did she, like his teachers, consider him to be naughty and a nuisance?
Having laid the blame on his teachers, she then turned her pointing finger in the direction of Dr. Philip Nitschke. It seems they have both appeared on some programme or other and later she “ ...realized how angry I was. Twelve years earlier, aged ten, our son had been one of those he seeks to help.”
She added: “Had Dr. Nitschke had his way in 1997, he could have killed my brilliant, compassionate and sensitive son, now probably the happiest and most balanced – and kindest – person I know.”
First the teachers were responsible, then Dr. Nitschke but what about Anne herself?
How truthful has Anne been? Nitschke offers (or offered) advice on VOLUNTARY euthanasia to adults in unendurable circumstances. To my knowledge he does/did not offer counselling of this nature to children, nor does he advocate jumping off a roof as a method of suicide.
I take issue too with the fact that Anne, in common with others of like mind, omitted the word VOLUNTARY simply because it does not suit her argument.
If a case can only be argued with untruths, then there IS no case.
The vision I see in my mind at this moment is that of Wessely trying to hold back the hoots of laughter as he considers that on this occasion, it is she who will be scraping egg off her face, and not he.
Shame on them both.
Gurli Bagnall
New Zealand
February, 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment