No more porridge for Mummy Bear

A psychiatric nurse, involved in a ménage à trois, has been struck off the nursing register. Jayne Reed got up to all sorts of seedy shenanigans with a 46-year-old and an 18-year-old patient. The Nursing and Midwifery Council heard that during the shenanigans, Reed would be "mummy bear" while the 46-year-old man... I wont go into details but daddy bear and baby bear were involved if you get my drift.

What struck me in the report in The Sun was that Ms Reed said: "I am angry at the mental health trust who failed to notice the decline in my practice and professionalism." Talk about passing the buck. This lady is off the scale. It's a bit like saying, "I drove at 120mph and lost my license. I'm now angry at the police who failed to notice my rubbish driving." She crossed the boundaries and she knows it.

She should be angry at herself for using patients for her own sexual gratification, angry at herself for thinking she could get away with it by blaming the Trust, and angry at herself for not thinking about the effects of her actions.

No more porridge for you Mummy Bear.

This sounds like a Benny Hill episode

It sounds more like something out of a Benny Hill skit, or something from one of those top shelf products you find in the local video store. As far as I can see, this story has nothing to do with medicine, or nursing.

The Shropshire Star covered the story of Anne Rogers-Hughes, a psychiatric nurse who had a four-month affair with a patient. During that time, she provided topless massages and described him to colleagues as a “stud”. I thought this kind of activity went on in seedy back street 'establishments' where participants usually need the NHS for the treatment of STDs.

Rogers-Hughes' bosses also got to hear the tawdry details of how she had sex with her patient twice a week at his home, and how she took him to see a GP to ask for Viagra while she sat in the waiting room.

I don't think it took much deliberating to decide to strike her off. The Nursing and Midwifery Council found Anne Rogers-Hughes "... guilty of engaging in a sexual relationship with Service User A between July and October 2007 and failing to notify managers of the affair."

So the nurse isn't working anymore. Big deal. I reckon she should be in jail, guility of a sex crime. Apparently the sex was mutually consensual. It seems like patients are only vulnerable when it suits the docs and nurses.

Don't worry, shrinks have found the 'worry centre'

Desperate people take desperate measures. Shrinks at the Institute of Psychiatry in London have apparently found the 'worry centre' of the brain for the first time. MRI scans of people deliberately made anxious by the threat of an electric shock have identified the hippocampus - the brain's memory centre - as the source of the anxiety.

Like all the other psychiatric hot air that's full of weasel words, I don't buy this. It begs the question of whether those under threat of electric shock were 'worriers' or not, or whether they were average Joes taken off the street. So there's some activity in the brain when you threaten them with being shocked. Goodness me! I've a theory about this. I reckon it means the subjects are alive. That's about as much as you can deduce from that.

Unscience aside, I'm getting to think like shrinks now, because the next step in this story is to 'discover' an expensive chemical, give it a name, patent it, sell it at inflated prices, and finally shove it down the throats of the worriers. When they're drugged up, and they stop worrying because they can't think straight, the shrinks will say they've solved the worriers of this world.

I'd like to take the worriers of this world, change a couple of letters and turn them into warriors, who then fight back against the shrinks who attempt to ruin their lives with chemicals.

ADHD is 'genetic', honest guv

Back in September, a shrink from Cardiff University in Wales, United Kingdom, shouted all over the media that ADHD is genetic. Professor Anita Thapar said, "Now we can say with confidence that ADHD is a genetic disease." How d'you know that then? Yes, there's probably a bubbly-babbly sickly-psycho answer that's supposed to wash over me and people like me, so we don't keep asking how d'you know that then?

But I don't buy the bubbly-babbly sickly-psycho answer. In fact, I thought the doc's nemesis Oliver James had a pretty good argument when he said in the Guardian, "Although she claimed to have proved that ADHD is a "genetic disease", if anything, she proved the opposite."

Fergus Walsh, the BBC's medical correspondent, waded in to the argument as well. He said of Prof Thapar's statement, "...those bold claims do not seem to be borne out by the actual research paper." And after doing his sums, he concluded, "That also means that seven out of eight of the ADHD group did not have the genetic variant - which hardly justifies Professor Thapar's confident assertion that ADHD is a genetic disease."

ADHD isn't scientific. It's a psychiatric obsession about badly behaved kids, based on the psycho-bubbly-babbly 'chemical imbalance' theory. There's no way to measure an imbalance, so the rug that ADHD is sitting on gets pulled every time someone says it's an imbalance in the brain. Or am I being unfair? There are parents out there who'd probably like to ask me whether I've ever had to live with a kid with ADHD. I'd say with complete confidence, no I haven't, because ADHD doesn't exist!

I'd follow that by saying I have lived with a kid who's badly behaved and yes, I know what that's like. It's tough and I couldn't wait to leave home. The badly behaved kid though didn't get drugs stuffed down his throat and now he's doing pretty good, thank you very much. I'm proud to call him my brother.

Doc Thapar should be ashamed of herself. I'm going to answer the question posed to her: she doesn't know it's genetic, and she can't prove it's genetic, but I'll bet she made a bucket load of cash from it.

Blood on their hands

The sad case of the divorce barrister Mark Saunders caught my attention this week. It sounds like he was a really troubled man; booze, depression, and drugs.

A report in the Daily Telegraph stated Mr Saunders had seen a psychiatrist in 2006. I've taken this paragraph from that article to point out something:

"A psychiatrist who examined him in 2006 warned that if he did not “abstain completely from all mind-altering substances” he risked being killed in a pub fight. Doctors were also concerned he would commit suicide if a period of depression and an alcohol binge coincided. To stabilise his mood swings, he was prescribed the antidepressant Prozac. "

If he was told to abstain completely from all mind-altering substances, why was he given antidepressants? The last time I checked, antidepressants were mind-altering, with a list of side effects as long as my arm, including violence.

I expect there's some psychobabbly answer, that 's supposed to satisfy the lemmings' curiosity, but I really don't care what the psychobabblists say. They have blood on their hands and it's time they answered up.

The wrong 'pillar of strength'

Why do these gentleman of the psychiatric persuasion think it's acceptable to, put rather bluntly, have sex with their patients?

I've witnessed the problems that go hand-in-hand for a friend who experienced and continues to experience mental illness. I've seen that person cling on to the tiniest possible scrap of hope, I've seen the desperation, I've seen the hopelessness, and I've felt the inadequacy of not being a pillar of strength at a time when I needed to be. That's me.

But what about a psychiatrist? Before I knew any better, I had them tagged as intelligent and caring individuals, who had the patience of Job and who had the answers for people going round the bend.

I was wrong. It's a crude euphemism, but the 'pillar of strength' that this psychiatrist was thinking of was the wrong kind. Thedore Soutzos who worked in Harley Street, London, had sex with three of his patients. He wasn't content with one. He had three. I keep having to remind myself of what this psychiatrist's position entails, what he's supposed to do according to his job description. Sex with patients aint part of it.

Bearing in mind the fragility of those who go to see a psychiatrist, and my friend is a good example, I was floored by the report in the Daily Mail. Following shenanigans with one of the ladies, Doc Soutzos was asked if he and the lady were in a relationship. Doc Soutzos was reported as having replied, "How can we be? I am a doctor and you are my patient."

What did Doc Soutzos think his words would do to his patient? I would put it to the doc that he knew very well what his words would do to his patient. If he's someone who's looking after the mental condition of people, having sex with them and then telling them there's no relationship is an open invitation to experience the consequences of a woman scorned.

I guess the doc wasn't thinking. No, I'll correct myself. He was thinking, but he was thinking with his 'pillar of strength' and we've all read where that leads in the tawdry headlines of the red tops.

For anyone reading this who needs a helping hand, go see your mates or your girlfriends, talk to them or go down the pub with them for a beer or go somewhere different for a change. Do something with someone you trust rather than with a shrink you don't know from Adam.

Seeing is believing, unless you're a psychiatrist

I've just stumbled across something the Yorkshire Ripper's shrink said earlier this year, and it begs a blog entry along with my fave question, 'How d'you know that then?'

The shrink, Dr Kevin Murray believes Peter Sutcliffe should never have been convicted of murder because Sutcliffe was too ill to know what he was doing and that he was suffering from diminished responsibility. Doc, I'm all ears: "How d'you know that then?" Doc Murray was also backing Sutcliffe's application to be released. As I'm writing this, I'm aware Sutcliffe didn't get released. The High Court Judge wasn't hoodwinked by Doc Murray and his beliefs. Talking of beliefs, I find it hard to believe Doc Murray thought Sutcliffe's release would really happen.

Michael Bilton, the author of the piece published in the Daily Mail, makes a damn good observation. He says, "...if Sutcliffe's doctors have successfully treated his claimed mental sickness, as they seem to suggest, I can't work out why Sutcliffe has not been sent back to serve his sentence in a maximum-security prison."

So here we are, 27 August 2010, about six weeks down the road from the decision to prevent Sutcliffe's release. Despite all the publicity, I'll bet Sutcliffe is still in Broadmoor Hospital right now and Mr Bilton's observation stands up even more robustly.

In summary then:

1) According to Doc Murray, Sutcliffe was well enough to be released

2) The Judge, As far as I know, didn't miraculously metamorphose into a psychiatrist and usurp Doc Murray's belief that Sutcliffe was well enough to be released

3) The decision not to release Sutcliffe, as far as I know, did not result in his contracting a new mental illness

4) Sutcliffe, as far as I know, returned to Broadmoor Hospital following his Court Hearing

Are you following my thought pattern here? How come Sutcliffe hasn't gone to prison? It's not as though it's because he might get hurt in prison. He was attacked in Broadmoor and got pretty mashed up by the look of it.

Might try to get hold of Mr Bilton to ask him for his thoughts on the matter.