The fundamental right of all to informed consent

And how it is denied in the guise of "mental health"

by Brian Daniels

At a time when personal freedoms have been severely restricted, the plight of those detained under the Mental Health Act can easily be forgotten. During the pandemic, the focus of the media has fallen on the reduction of liberties for those who ordinarily enjoy the freedoms consistent with an untroubled existence.

The Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) however hasn’t forgotten those suffering mental difficulties that are being ‘treated’ either in the community or under lock and key. It has set forth a code by which it aligns its activities and purposes. The Mental Health Declaration of Human Rights articulates the guiding principles and standards against which psychiatric human rights violations are investigated and exposed.

The right to full informed consent is a key point of the code, but it’s an issue that’s nonchalantly dismissed on a regular basis. Based on reports received, people detained and forcibly ‘treated’ are expected to accept the lack of scientific evidence to support psychiatric diagnoses that have never been medically confirmed. As a consequence, they are labelled and forcibly treated with mind-altering drugs, all under the guise of ‘help.’

Which raises another issue; those being drugged should have the right to full disclosure of all documented risks of any proposed drug or ‘treatment.’ Based on the number of suicides and premature deaths associated with psychiatric drugs, full disclosure is unlikely to be a reality. If a person knew the drugs could cause violence, aggression, suicidal thoughts and suicidal behaviour, it’s unlikely that prescription rates would be so high.

There should also be a right to be informed of all available medical treatments which do not include the administration of a psychiatric drug or treatment. Despite being doctors, psychiatrists aren’t in the habit of finding a solution that doesn’t involve mind-altering drugs that carry huge liabilities.

If a person knew about the dangers, he or she should have the right to refuse any treatment considered harmful. That however is often overridden by psychiatrists who use detention laws to forcibly treat someone.

It’s easy to see that those caught in the mental health matrix need a helping hand and the opportunity to exercise his or her rights. The right to full informed consent challenges the current psychiatric modus operandi. It also has the potential of saving the lives of those who can make choices based on all of the available information rather than selective data. It also has the potential of bringing about much-needed reform to the mental health industry.

The right to full informed consent, includes:

  1. The scientific/medical test confirming any alleged diagnoses of psychiatric disorder and the right to refute any psychiatric diagnoses of mental “illness” that cannot be medically confirmed.
  2. Full disclosure of all documented risks of any proposed drug or “treatment.”
  3. The right to be informed of all available medical treatments which do not include the administration of a psychiatric drug or treatment.
  4. The right to refuse any treatment the patient considers harmful.

Source:

https://www.cchr.org.uk/mental-health-declaration-of-human-rights/


UKR Columnist Brian Daniels is the executive director of the UK office of the global human rights watchdog,

the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR)


••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

About Steve Cook 799 Articles
Director, UK Reloaded
Contact: Website

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


%d bloggers like this: