I've started to watch it but not sure I can continue. Can some one give me a 'spoiler' view so I don't have to?
The thing that depressed me was that she was released and not sectioned.
There were several excuses made about her having been sedated and the police surgeon finding her to be calm and lucid but the main failing was a lack of communication and continuity.
Why were the cameras and footage not taken from the crew as evidence and reviewed at the station?
Why did the original officers involved not put forward very strongly that under no circumstances was she to be released?
I know the place she was released from, it's a fair way on foot from where she ended up stabbing someone, it also happens to be a custody suite on the other side of town from the station which may explain the communication breakdown once the first lot handed the job on.
:facepalm:
They don't need to direct the court as she should have never been in front of the beak in the first place.The thing that depressed me was that she was released and not sectioned.
There were several excuses made about her having been sedated and the police surgeon finding her to be calm and lucid but the main failing was a lack of communication and continuity.
Why were the cameras and footage not taken from the crew as evidence and reviewed at the station?
Why did the original officers involved not put forward very strongly that under no circumstances was she to be released?
I know the place she was released from, it's a fair way on foot from where she ended up stabbing someone, it also happens to be a custody suite on the other side of town from the station which may explain the communication breakdown once the first lot handed the job on.
:facepalm:
She was released following a court appearance. IIRC she was found guilty of minor offences and sentenced to the time she had already spent in custody. The arresting officers can hardly direct a court not to release someone. It does seem strange, however, that that court did not ask for psychiatric and social reports before releasing her although she did seem superficially "normal" in custody. It's the seemingly identical psychotic episode happening to both twins at the same time that makes it so weird. It was truly disturbing viewing.
If some one gets killed then it's failure of duty of care to both the mentally ill person and the victim.
Double fail.
:facepalm:
It's not an impossibly high standard when three different state services were involved and no one put two and two together, not to mention a documentary film crew being present.If some one gets killed then it's failure of duty of care to both the mentally ill person and the victim.
Double fail.
:facepalm:
No, it looks as though some wrong decisions were made in this case but to say that the system has failed if a person released from custody kills a member of the public ever is setting an impossibly high standard. The only way to guarantee that is never to release anyone.
I have no doubt in my mind that many arguments on here are often turned upon themselves too. For example if this story was about a mentally unwell person that was incarcerated for the wrong reasons then people would be pointing the finger in the opposite direction claiming rights were being abused etc.
It's not an impossibly high standard when three different state services were involved and no one put two and two together, not to mention a documentary film crew being present.If some one gets killed then it's failure of duty of care to both the mentally ill person and the victim.
Double fail.
:facepalm:
No, it looks as though some wrong decisions were made in this case but to say that the system has failed if a person released from custody kills a member of the public ever is setting an impossibly high standard. The only way to guarantee that is never to release anyone.
If we need more layers of redundancy than that we have serious problems.
You must be a delight at dinner parties, Reg
;D
Has he had time to watch the footage? I would have thought he would find it interesting.
And it annoys when the layman gets ignored.You must be a delight at dinner parties, Reg
;D
It just annoys me when people talk about mental health issues, particularly sectioning people, when they clearly know nothing about the process, the MHA, DOLS, etc.
Mr R is an Approved Clinician. He spends a lot of his time dealing with these sorts of issues, including doing MHA assessments for the police.
And it annoys when the layman gets ignored.You must be a delight at dinner parties, Reg
;D
It just annoys me when people talk about mental health issues, particularly sectioning people, when they clearly know nothing about the process, the MHA, DOLS, etc.
Mr R is an Approved Clinician. He spends a lot of his time dealing with these sorts of issues, including doing MHA assessments for the police.
It doesn't matter how "dificult" it would be, it was as plain to anyone viewing the film that she was tapped in the head and needed detaining.
Dismissing the plain truth out of hand because it wasn't pointed out by an expert is blinkered, maybe that is how these people fall through the net and kill people.
Arrogance.
So tell me Doctor FreudAnd it annoys when the layman gets ignored.You must be a delight at dinner parties, Reg
;D
It just annoys me when people talk about mental health issues, particularly sectioning people, when they clearly know nothing about the process, the MHA, DOLS, etc.
Mr R is an Approved Clinician. He spends a lot of his time dealing with these sorts of issues, including doing MHA assessments for the police.
It doesn't matter how "dificult" it would be, it was as plain to anyone viewing the film that she was tapped in the head and needed detaining.
Do you (without googling) actually know the requirements of the MHA, DOLS and the hurdles that need to be got over for that to happen?QuoteDismissing the plain truth out of hand because it wasn't pointed out by an expert is blinkered, maybe that is how these people fall through the net and kill people.
There is a difference between 'dismissing the plain truth' and giving due weight to the uninformed opinions of those who know bugger all about the subject...QuoteArrogance.
Yeah - whatever... I'd rather be arrogant than plain pig ignorant.
So tell me Doctor FreudAnd it annoys when the layman gets ignored.You must be a delight at dinner parties, Reg
;D
It just annoys me when people talk about mental health issues, particularly sectioning people, when they clearly know nothing about the process, the MHA, DOLS, etc.
Mr R is an Approved Clinician. He spends a lot of his time dealing with these sorts of issues, including doing MHA assessments for the police.
It doesn't matter how "dificult" it would be, it was as plain to anyone viewing the film that she was tapped in the head and needed detaining.
Do you (without googling) actually know the requirements of the MHA, DOLS and the hurdles that need to be got over for that to happen?QuoteDismissing the plain truth out of hand because it wasn't pointed out by an expert is blinkered, maybe that is how these people fall through the net and kill people.
There is a difference between 'dismissing the plain truth' and giving due weight to the uninformed opinions of those who know bugger all about the subject...QuoteArrogance.
Yeah - whatever... I'd rather be arrogant than plain pig ignorant.
If you had been the custody sergeant or the doctor who saw her and you had been shown that tape would you have sent her on her way?
I don't think they saw the footage.But why not?
The footage is irrelevant, up to a point. Any assessing doctor is assessing on what's in front of them at the time, and if the person does not appear to be a risk to themselves or others because of a treatable illness there are no grounds for a section.
And the all the relevant information was not given to the clinician was it?The footage is irrelevant, up to a point. Any assessing doctor is assessing on what's in front of them at the time, and if the person does not appear to be a risk to themselves or others because of a treatable illness there are no grounds for a section.
Exactly.
The question that the approved clinician or Section 12 approved doctor has to ask themselves is "does this person pose a significant risk of harm to themselves or others?" and this decision is on the basis of their presentation at the time of the assessment.
And the all the relevant information was not given to the clinician was it?The footage is irrelevant, up to a point. Any assessing doctor is assessing on what's in front of them at the time, and if the person does not appear to be a risk to themselves or others because of a treatable illness there are no grounds for a section.
Exactly.
The question that the approved clinician or Section 12 approved doctor has to ask themselves is "does this person pose a significant risk of harm to themselves or others?" and this decision is on the basis of their presentation at the time of the assessment.
It was there and it was not passed on.
Now answer the question - having seen the tape of her actions and knowing that she had been sedated would you have been happy to let her go?
And the assessement was muddied by the fact that she had been whacked up with happy pills and that bit of information was not passed on.And the all the relevant information was not given to the clinician was it?The footage is irrelevant, up to a point. Any assessing doctor is assessing on what's in front of them at the time, and if the person does not appear to be a risk to themselves or others because of a treatable illness there are no grounds for a section.
Exactly.
The question that the approved clinician or Section 12 approved doctor has to ask themselves is "does this person pose a significant risk of harm to themselves or others?" and this decision is on the basis of their presentation at the time of the assessment.
It was there and it was not passed on.
Now answer the question - having seen the tape of her actions and knowing that she had been sedated would you have been happy to let her go?
You don't get it do you?
A MHA assess,emt is based on potential for future risk - not just on past behaviour. You can't section someone on the basis of what they have done - but on whether they pose a risk to themselves or others in the future.
And the all the relevant information was not given to the clinician was it?The footage is irrelevant, up to a point. Any assessing doctor is assessing on what's in front of them at the time, and if the person does not appear to be a risk to themselves or others because of a treatable illness there are no grounds for a section.
Exactly.
The question that the approved clinician or Section 12 approved doctor has to ask themselves is "does this person pose a significant risk of harm to themselves or others?" and this decision is on the basis of their presentation at the time of the assessment.
It was there and it was not passed on.
Now answer the question - having seen the tape of her actions and knowing that she had been sedated would you have been happy to let her go?
You don't get it do you?
A MHA assessment is based on potential for future risk - not just on past behaviour. You can't section someone on the basis of what they have done - but on whether they pose a risk to themselves or others in the future.
And the assessement was wrong because she had been whacked up with happy pills and that bit of information was not passed on.
This is the issue, it's not an attack on clinicians.
Now answer the question - knowing she had been sedated before being seen, having seen tape before assesment - would you have let her go?
Want to answer the question now?And the all the relevant information was not given to the clinician was it?The footage is irrelevant, up to a point. Any assessing doctor is assessing on what's in front of them at the time, and if the person does not appear to be a risk to themselves or others because of a treatable illness there are no grounds for a section.
Exactly.
The question that the approved clinician or Section 12 approved doctor has to ask themselves is "does this person pose a significant risk of harm to themselves or others?" and this decision is on the basis of their presentation at the time of the assessment.
It was there and it was not passed on.
Now answer the question - having seen the tape of her actions and knowing that she had been sedated would you have been happy to let her go?
You don't get it do you?
A MHA assessment is based on potential for future risk - not just on past behaviour. You can't section someone on the basis of what they have done - but on whether they pose a risk to themselves or others in the future.
And the assessement was wrong because she had been whacked up with happy pills and that bit of information was not passed on.
How do you know that? You weren't there when the assessment was done - you don;t know what information was or wasn't provided.QuoteThis is the issue, it's not an attack on clinicians.
No - the issue is that you are commenting in rather Daily Wail-esque fashion on something you clearly know bugger all about.QuoteNow answer the question - knowing she had been sedated before being seen, having seen tape before assesment - would you have let her go?
I'm not an approved clinician or a section 12 approved doctor, so I wouldn't be asked to do an assessment.
What I do know is that I would be so foolish (and continuously so) as some as to make an instant 'diagnosis' on the basis of a heavily edited TV programme and what I read in the local rag...
Want to stop digging now?
I did and he used a lot of words to say "I dunno".
::-)
Non sharing of information is the issue here, I want to know why.
Want to answer the question now?And the all the relevant information was not given to the clinician was it?The footage is irrelevant, up to a point. Any assessing doctor is assessing on what's in front of them at the time, and if the person does not appear to be a risk to themselves or others because of a treatable illness there are no grounds for a section.
Exactly.
The question that the approved clinician or Section 12 approved doctor has to ask themselves is "does this person pose a significant risk of harm to themselves or others?" and this decision is on the basis of their presentation at the time of the assessment.
It was there and it was not passed on.
Now answer the question - having seen the tape of her actions and knowing that she had been sedated would you have been happy to let her go?
You don't get it do you?
A MHA assessment is based on potential for future risk - not just on past behaviour. You can't section someone on the basis of what they have done - but on whether they pose a risk to themselves or others in the future.
And the assessement was wrong because she had been whacked up with happy pills and that bit of information was not passed on.
How do you know that? You weren't there when the assessment was done - you don;t know what information was or wasn't provided.QuoteThis is the issue, it's not an attack on clinicians.
No - the issue is that you are commenting in rather Daily Wail-esque fashion on something you clearly know bugger all about.QuoteNow answer the question - knowing she had been sedated before being seen, having seen tape before assesment - would you have let her go?
I'm not an approved clinician or a section 12 approved doctor, so I wouldn't be asked to do an assessment.
What I do know is that I would be so foolish (and continuously so) as some as to make an instant 'diagnosis' on the basis of a heavily edited TV programme and what I read in the local rag...
Want to stop digging now?
Still waiting...Want to answer the question now?And the all the relevant information was not given to the clinician was it?The footage is irrelevant, up to a point. Any assessing doctor is assessing on what's in front of them at the time, and if the person does not appear to be a risk to themselves or others because of a treatable illness there are no grounds for a section.
Exactly.
The question that the approved clinician or Section 12 approved doctor has to ask themselves is "does this person pose a significant risk of harm to themselves or others?" and this decision is on the basis of their presentation at the time of the assessment.
It was there and it was not passed on.
Now answer the question - having seen the tape of her actions and knowing that she had been sedated would you have been happy to let her go?
You don't get it do you?
A MHA assessment is based on potential for future risk - not just on past behaviour. You can't section someone on the basis of what they have done - but on whether they pose a risk to themselves or others in the future.
And the assessement was wrong because she had been whacked up with happy pills and that bit of information was not passed on.
How do you know that? You weren't there when the assessment was done - you don;t know what information was or wasn't provided.QuoteThis is the issue, it's not an attack on clinicians.
No - the issue is that you are commenting in rather Daily Wail-esque fashion on something you clearly know bugger all about.QuoteNow answer the question - knowing she had been sedated before being seen, having seen tape before assesment - would you have let her go?
I'm not an approved clinician or a section 12 approved doctor, so I wouldn't be asked to do an assessment.
What I do know is that I would be so foolish (and continuously so) as some as to make an instant 'diagnosis' on the basis of a heavily edited TV programme and what I read in the local rag...
Want to stop digging now?
Want to stop making a prat of yourself?
Still waiting...Want to answer the question now?And the all the relevant information was not given to the clinician was it?The footage is irrelevant, up to a point. Any assessing doctor is assessing on what's in front of them at the time, and if the person does not appear to be a risk to themselves or others because of a treatable illness there are no grounds for a section.
Exactly.
The question that the approved clinician or Section 12 approved doctor has to ask themselves is "does this person pose a significant risk of harm to themselves or others?" and this decision is on the basis of their presentation at the time of the assessment.
It was there and it was not passed on.
Now answer the question - having seen the tape of her actions and knowing that she had been sedated would you have been happy to let her go?
You don't get it do you?
A MHA assessment is based on potential for future risk - not just on past behaviour. You can't section someone on the basis of what they have done - but on whether they pose a risk to themselves or others in the future.
And the assessement was wrong because she had been whacked up with happy pills and that bit of information was not passed on.
How do you know that? You weren't there when the assessment was done - you don;t know what information was or wasn't provided.QuoteThis is the issue, it's not an attack on clinicians.
No - the issue is that you are commenting in rather Daily Wail-esque fashion on something you clearly know bugger all about.QuoteNow answer the question - knowing she had been sedated before being seen, having seen tape before assesment - would you have let her go?
I'm not an approved clinician or a section 12 approved doctor, so I wouldn't be asked to do an assessment.
What I do know is that I would be so foolish (and continuously so) as some as to make an instant 'diagnosis' on the basis of a heavily edited TV programme and what I read in the local rag...
Want to stop digging now?
Want to stop making a prat of yourself?
Some people might suggest this was a silly and trivial response to what was a serious case.
Without the evidence we cannot judge what is clearly a difficult situation, complex even for those who have spent years studying the subjects. With hindsight, it's easy to be an armchair critic. Or a Mail columnist.
Don't be obtuse Reg.
You are just afraid that if you give an honest answer you would be forced to contradict yourself.
Let me make this simple for you.Don't be obtuse Reg.
You are just afraid that if you give an honest answer you would be forced to contradict yourself.
I've already given you an answer. I can't help it if you aren't capable of understanding it.
Let me make this simple for you.Don't be obtuse Reg.
You are just afraid that if you give an honest answer you would be forced to contradict yourself.
I've already given you an answer. I can't help it if you aren't capable of understanding it.
Yes or No.
Even jurors get asked to give a yes or no answer about complex issues Reg and they are laymen and women.Let me make this simple for you.Don't be obtuse Reg.
You are just afraid that if you give an honest answer you would be forced to contradict yourself.
I've already given you an answer. I can't help it if you aren't capable of understanding it.
Yes or No.
Yes - you're commenting on something you know bugger all about.
Clear enough for you?
Mental illness includes difficulty thinking, socializing, & functioning.
Even jurors get asked to make a yes or no deciscions about complex issues Reg and they are laymen and women.Let me make this simple for you.Don't be obtuse Reg.
You are just afraid that if you give an honest answer you would be forced to contradict yourself.
I've already given you an answer. I can't help it if you aren't capable of understanding it.
Yes or No.
Yes - you're commenting on something you know bugger all about.
Clear enough for you?
So you need to answer the question instead of hurling snobby abuse.
Yes?
Or...
No?
And it annoys when the layman gets ignored.
It doesn't matter how "dificult" it would be, it was as plain to anyone viewing the film that she was tapped in the head and needed detaining.
Actually Zoiders, if you think about the last comment I made and the way the 'system' used to apply the methods of determining how and when a person was fit to detain under the mental health act, it may help you to understand why the legislation and procedures were changed.I know why they changed the system, ignore what Reg said he was just hurling abuse to bully and I was not going to rise to it.
Care in the community for example is a relatively new process and one that in many ways is still evolving. It is the principles of that caring approach that does not simply lock people up because some one believes they must be deluded. Tests must be undertaken and failed. It cannot be done on a whim, like it was years ago to inherit etc.
What we all saw from the footage is a person who demonstrated, in one of the clearest ways imaginable, that, at that time at least, she was a danger to herself and the public, yet she was set free.But was she a danger because of a treatable illness? Because if something else, which was not an illness which can be treated, was causing her behaviour, she can't be sectioned. The point of holding someone on a section is to assess and treat them. She'd been assessed. If there was nothing wrong with her that could be treated, there were no grounds to hold her.
That's explaining the current system. The system could be changed, if there is the will, so that a person with an untreatable illness or condition could be detained, too.
I'm not saying it's easy! Of course it's difficult to decide who it's fair to hold or not. That doesn't mean non-experts can't ask for change.
All the issues raised above also come up with "treatable" illnesses - whether or not the treatments work for the individual - but it is deemed acceptable to detain people when they are a danger to themselves and others. The difficulty is deciding whether a person is dangerous. Once that has been decided, it shouldn't matter if their condition is treatable or not, in my opinion.But if the condition isn't treatable, then you're talking about locking somebody up forever, because there's no hope of them getting better and no longer presenting a risk. One of the underlying principles behind the mental health acts and the adult protection legislation is minimal intervention. If someone will come along and agree to treatment voluntarily, you don't detain them. If there is no treatment possible, you don't detain them. You're saying it's acceptable to lock people up indefinitely because they might do something dangerous. That's a serious attack on people's civil liberties and it's completely diffferent to detaining somebody who is ill and making bad decisions because of their illness and who would no longer be at risk once their illness was treated.
I don't see a great moral difference between people being locked up while being forced to receive treatment and people being locked up while having no treatment. Already people can be detained when they haven't committed a crime.
You're saying it's acceptable to lock people up indefinitely because they might do something dangerous. That's a serious attack on people's civil liberties and it's completely diffferent to detaining somebody who is ill and making bad decisions because of their illness and who would no longer be at risk once their illness was treated.
They were tested negative for drugs.What tests did they do?
Well they must have cross matched at least one of them and tested for drugs as one of them had a compound fracture of the leg that would have required surgery.They were tested negative for drugs.What tests did they do?
All I remember is the police searching them for drugs... :-\
(Based on the post-event psychiatric analysis it does sound like they were clean.)
Sure, they'd need a blood type, but I don't believe that all surgery on broken legs is preceded by a comprehensive drugs scan. [I recall being asked what I had taken, but I was perhaps more lucid than this lady.] I'm no aneasthetist though - maybe there are some key substances they need to know about? Surgical teams are not criminal investigators.Well they must have cross matched at least one of them and tested for drugs as one of them had a compound fracture of the leg that would have required surgery.They were tested negative for drugs.What tests did they do?
All I remember is the police searching them for drugs... :-\
(Based on the post-event psychiatric analysis it does sound like they were clean.)
Sure, they'd need a blood type, but I don't believe that all surgery on broken legs is preceded by a comprehensive drugs scan. [I recall being asked what I had taken, but I was perhaps more lucid than this lady.] I'm no aneasthetist though - maybe there are some key substances they need to know about? Surgical teams are not criminal investigators.Well they must have cross matched at least one of them and tested for drugs as one of them had a compound fracture of the leg that would have required surgery.They were tested negative for drugs.What tests did they do?
All I remember is the police searching them for drugs... :-\
(Based on the post-event psychiatric analysis it does sound like they were clean.)
So Sabina may have reached the police station without any drugs tests, and the police wouldn't know any test results from the leg-surgery-lady until later. Possibly.
Police cannot delay processing a suspect until they have gathered all intelligence from other emergency services, documentary crews, members of the public - they have to get on with the job as they see fit. They would need good reason to go looking for other data i.e. make a judgement call.