KNOW YOUR RIGHTS
+
OUR WORDS MATTER
KNOW YOUR RIGHTS
+
OUR WORDS MATTER
Advocating for the criminalisation of restrictive practices is crucial in protecting the rights and dignity of individuals. By pushing for laws that prohibit and penalise the use of restrictive practices in various settings such as healthcare facilities, schools, and residential care facilities, we can ensure that vulnerable populations are not subjected to harmful and dehumanising treatment. It is important to advocate for policies that promote alternative, person-centered approaches that respect the autonomy and well-being of individuals. By raising awareness, engaging with policymakers, and working with advocacy groups, we can push for change and create a more inclusive and rights-based society for all.
I am reaching out to underscore the crucial role that language plays in the realm of mental health and suicide prevention. The words we choose to use when discussing these topics can significantly impact individuals' well-being, perceptions, and willingness to seek help. It is essential that we are mindful of the language we employ and the messages we convey, as our words have the power to either support or potentially harm those in vulnerable states.
When addressing mental health challenges and suicidal thoughts, it is imperative that we adopt language that is compassionate, non-stigmatising, and empathetic. Words that convey understanding, support, and hope can make a substantial difference in how individuals perceive their struggles and the help available to them. Conversely, using stigmatising or dismissive language can exacerbate feelings of shame, isolation, and hopelessness, hindering individuals from reaching out for assistance.
The use of restrictive practices in hospitals and health care facilities, residential aged care and disability care settings is a key human rights issue in Australia. The inappropriate use of restrictive practices is concerning because it can cause physical and psychological harm to the person being restricted. It can constitute both a breach of the law and a breach of a person’s human rights.
Upholding Human Rights: Criminalising Seclusion and Restraint in Mental Health Care
I am writing to express my firm belief that the practices of seclusion and restraint in mental health care settings should be criminalised. These interventions, which can have profound and lasting negative effects on individuals' well-being, are in direct violation of human rights and dignity. The use of seclusion and restraint in mental health care is often associated with instances of trauma, physical harm, and dehumanisation of individuals in crisis.
These interventions can exacerbate the very conditions they are intended to address and perpetuate a cycle of violence and coercion. Criminalising seclusion and restraint would send a clear message that the physical and emotional safety of individuals in mental health care settings must be prioritised above all else. It would create legal accountability for the inappropriate and unnecessary use of these interventions and drive a shift towards trauma-informed, person-centered care approaches that respect the autonomy and dignity of individuals. By criminalising seclusion and restraint, we can pave the way for systemic changes in mental health care that prioritise therapeutic relationships, de-escalation techniques, and non-coercive interventions. It is time to move towards a model of care that upholds the rights and humanity of all individuals, regardless of their mental health status.
I urge you to join me in advocating for the criminalisation of seclusion and restraint in mental health care and championing a rights-based approach to supporting individuals in crisis. Together, we can work towards a future where all individuals are treated with dignity, respect, and compassion in their journey towards mental health and well-being. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. I look forward to working together towards a more just and humane mental health care system. Sincerely, Olivia Fischer
In an era where truth often seems obscured by a fog of corporate interests and institutional power, the work of independent journalists and ethical practitioners becomes a beacon of light during these dark times. These intrepid seekers of truth stand as the last line of defence against a tide of misinformation that threatens to engulf us all. Today we find ourselves facing a crisis of epic proportions in the field of mental health. One that strikes at the very heart of scientific integrity and public trust.
Despite Mounting evidence of widespread fraud, and misconduct in anti-depressant research an alarming number of medical professionals continue to operate behind what can only be described by being a pharmaceutical curtain.
Every day patients are prescribed powerful psychotropic drugs based on studies that are now known to be manipulative and misleading. This is not merely academic dishonesty. It is a betrayal of public trust with potentially devastating consequences for millions of lives. The story of how anti depressants came to dominate the mental health landscape is one of corporate greed , scientific malfeasance and regulatory failure it is a tail that desperately needs telling and one that cuts to the core of how we as a society approach mental health and human suffering. In times like these we owe a debt of gratitude to those journalists who dare to challenge the status quo. Who risk professional ostracism and personal attacks to bring the hidden truths to light. Their courage and commitment to uncovering the facts no matter how uncomfortable or inconvenient serve as a vital safeguard for public health, democratic values and medical freedom.
The general medical community has failed to assist people in safely getting off these drugs. The dependency can create severe withdrawal symptoms. Most doctors have no clue how to get their patients off safely keeping them in a cycle of drug dependency.
The worst of prescribers will frame the withdrawal symptoms as worsening “depression” and justification for staying on drugs.
In the shadowy corridors of modern psychiatry and it is shadowy, it is dark - lurks a silent epidemic, one that has ruined countless lives, while hiding behind the mask of help. These medical catastrophes have been brewing for decades their reckless over prescription of psychotropic drugs and the harrowing struggle of those trying to break free from their chemical shackles. Imagine being told that a cocktail of pills would lift the fog of depression, sharpen your focus and stabilise your mood - all under the guise of scientific progress and safety. Now imagine finding yourself trapped in a nightmare far worse than one you sought to escape. For millions around the world this isn’t imagination it is reality. These people have become unwilling victims to a system that prioritises quick fixes and poly pharmacy - over long term healing, where the cure has become nothing more than a devastating disease in itself.
The allure is undeniable , a pill for every ill. A chemical solution for life’s complexities but beneath this seductive promise lies a darker truth. What began as a single prescription often cascades into a dangerous dance of multiple drugs each attempting to counteract the side effects of the of the others this isn’t health care this is a perilous game of pharmaceutical Jenga, with patients lives hanging in the balance.
10th December 1948
Physical restraint refers to the act of using physical force or a device to restrict an individual's movement or behavior. It is a form of intervention that is sometimes used in settings such as healthcare, education, or corrections to manage behavior or prevent harm. Physical restraints can include methods such as holding someone down, using straps or cuffs to limit movement, or confining someone to a specific area. In healthcare settings, physical restraint may be used as a last resort to ensure the safety of an individual who is at risk of harming themselves or others. However, the use of physical restraint can have serious implications for the individual's physical and psychological well-being, and should only be used when absolutely necessary and in accordance with established guidelines and ethical standards. It is important to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate uses of physical restraint, as well as to ensure that individuals subjected to physical restraint are treated with dignity, respect, and compassion. The use of physical restraint should always be justified, proportionate, and accompanied by careful monitoring to minimize the risk of harm and ensure the individual's safety.
Chemical restraint refers to the use of medications or drugs to control a person's behaviour or restrict their movement. It is often used in various settings such as healthcare facilities, schools, and residential care facilities to manage individuals who may exhibit challenging behaviours or pose a risk to themselves or others. Chemical restraint involves the administration of sedatives, tranquillisers, antipsychotic medications, or other drugs to alter a person's behaviour or mental state.
Seclusion is a restrictive intervention that can have serious negative effects on a person's mental health and well-being. Being isolated in a confined space can lead to feelings of fear, anxiety, powerlessness, and loss of control. It can also exacerbate feelings of stigma and reinforce a sense of being punished or exclude.
The National Mental Health Consumer and Carer Forum maintains that seclusion and restraint and other restrictive practices are avoidable and preventable (NMHCCF 2021).
The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists acknowledges in its position statement that seclusion and restraint should only be used “…as a safety measure of last resort where all other interventions…” were considered (RANZCP 2021).
Another example of a restrictive practice is involuntary treatment. This is the compulsory assessment or treatment of people in mental health services without the person's consent being given. This can also be legally approved under certain conditions. More information about this is in the Involuntary treatment report.
Winston Churchill
H E A L T H C A R E R E F O R M
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.