Thursday, December 20, 2012

France: Psychiatrist to Prison for Patient's Actions

In a rush to provide answers where they may be none, France has now opened a door that may have terrible consequences upon the mentally ill, as well as upon insurance companies.

When people look to the state ("government", in any form) they demand answers so that they can continue to look to the state as their primary adoration.  This is a form of state worship; where a person or society looks to the government for protection, security, guidance, and answers; things more closely linked to religious worship.  The state will keep them safe, at birth, and eventually, should they have children, the state will educate the children.  Should the children have questions about human life, such as sexuality, the state will provide the answers. Should they grow old and be unable to care for themselves, the state will provide the care.  The state is the begin all, and the end all, for the worshipper, and when something goes wrong, the worshipper demands an answer from the "all knowing" state.  The state cannot run out of money because it is "all powerful."

From plane crashes to child murder, the worshippers turn to the state and demand answers.  When a storm hits, worshippers demand not only repairs, but prevention, as if nature, itself, is under the domain of the state.

The state, therefore, gives an answer.

This system of state worship is unsustainable, in any form.

France has ascribed blame here which, if allowed to stand, may have far reaching repercussions that are unpredictable and may impact the mentally ill's treatment in ways unforeseen.


MARSEILLES, France (Reuters) - A French psychiatrist whose patient hacked an elderly man to death was found guilty of manslaughter on Tuesday in a groundbreaking case that could affect the way patients are treated.
A court in Marseilles said Daniele Canarelli, 58, had committed a "grave error" by failing to recognize the public danger posed by Joel Gaillard, her patient of four years.
Gaillard hacked to death 80-year-old Germain Trabuc with an axe in March 2004 in Gap, in the Alps region of southeastern France, 20 days after fleeing a consultation with Canarelli at Marseilles's Edouard Toulouse hospital.
Canarelli was handed a one-year prison sentence and ordered to pay 8,500 euros to the victim's children, in the first case of its kind in France. Defense lawyers said the ruling would have serious repercussions for treatment of the mentally ill.
"If a psychiatrist lives in fear of being sentenced, it will have very real consequences and probably lead to harsher treatment of patients," said Canarelli's lawyer, Sylvain Pontier.
The court said Canarelli should have requested Gaillard be placed in a specialized medical unit or referred him to another medical team, as one of her colleagues suggested. Her stubborn refusal had equated to a form of "blindness", the court president Fabrice Castoldi said.
Gaillard had already been forcibly committed to a secure hospital on several occasions for a series of increasingly dangerous incidents.
The victim's son, Michel Trabuc, said he hoped the case would set a legal precedent.
"There's no such thing as zero risk, but I hope this will move psychiatry forward and, above all, that it will never happen again," he said.
Gaillard was not held responsible for his actions and was freed under medical supervision.

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

IMO, the principal error in judgement is that the patient was not held responsible for his actions and was freed under the supervision of further psychiatric treatment since he DID commit a horrible crime of his own volition. He should never have been freed to ax again and place the blame on someone else even if that person might have malpracticed, which this psychiatrist cleary did.

It is not wrong to hold those liable for their malpractices in treating mental health issues, or to be held to higher standards in their practices, or for them to be held responsible for their own lack of sound medical/psychiatric practices, just like any other physician in the practice of medicine and health issues. We rely on thier professionalism and knowledge, don't we? Then they too should be held accountable.

It has been proven in our own country that there have been many psychiatrists, psychologists and others counseling in mental health issues that are not qualified or responsible to perform in these functions. If there ever was a time to change this and improve their lax standards, AND that of our govenment, it is now.

Peter,I doubt you have thought about this, but it appears sometimes that you are becoming compulsively hard-lined and unreasonably anti-state, anti-government and anti-political in many of the stances you take and in every way. Not trying to offend you at all, but with all due respect and good intentions, I suggest you might want to take a hard look at this compulsion for your own sake.

mommaklee said...

Anon (choose a name) @ 9:16

If the psychiatrist had been found guilty of malpractice, that would be one thing, but instead they were found guilty of manslaughter. The ruling is inappropriate to say the least.

Anonymous said...

In the past, when I was having problems with my inlaws, unbelievable problems, I sought some mental counseling, as I had never encountered anything like this in my life. The first thing the counselor asked me, was I feeling homicidal or sucidal? I told her I have never felt sucidal. (I dont' know how to spell that.) She said what about homicidal, I laughed and said no, I'm not crazy enough for that yet. But the truth was,I had considered it as the only way to end what was happening, even though I knew I was not a killer. But, she had to go on what I told her. And a lot of crazy people are still good at lying and making you believe them.

Does anyone think a mother really believes her MIGHT hurt or kill someone.Even when you acknowledge there is a problem, you really don't know what is inside someones head. I know alot of people, who would say after the fact, I never thought that would happen, or I didn't see that in him.

All that is to say: Maybe malpractice, but not criminal.

dadgum said...

How do you hold one person criminally responsible for another's actions, free will choice?

Malpractice, negligence perhaps..a civil hearing makes sense.

Anonymous said...

I am the anony who wrote the post at 9:16 a.m. and I agree with you all that this psychiatrist should have not have been sentenced to a prison term as she did not tell this whacko to go out and commit an ax murder, nor did she conspire with him to do it, nor was she informed by him as to what he intended to do.

However, she was direlect in her duties as a practicing professional and should have had to bear some responsibility and punishment for her malpractice in treating this patient when there were others more qualified that she could have conferred and consulted with and she did not, even some who offered to assist her in his treatment but she stubbornly refused. For that she should be held liable.

IMO, her punishment should have been the loss of her license to practice for an indefinite poeriod, and a fine, perhaps probation, until she redeemed herself and acquired more skill and the return of her license to practice psychiatry. Prison, no. She is not the one who swung the ax and it is HE who should be in prison for life w/o parole.

My apologies that I did not state what I felt should (or should not) have been done. The rest of my post stands as written. Thank you for pointing out my error.

Anonymous said...

I am with Peter, this is dangerous. It's also nonsense and it is outrageous.

I was just reading about the legalization of euthansia in France in the news. It figures they would make a ridiculous judgment like this.

Who didn't see this coming? It's had one foot in the door for twenty years. People have lost their minds without God.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/339542

Anonymous said...

They certainly have, anon at 1:53!

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:44 said
The first thing the counselor asked me, was I feeling homicidal or sucidal? I told her I have never felt sucidal. (I dont' know how to spell that.) She said what about homicidal, I laughed and said no, I'm not crazy enough for that yet.

I believe if the counselor was trained in Statement Analysis and if you really responded to a yes or no question with "No, I'm not crazy enough for that yet" the counselor would have known that anything after No weakens the answer. Not only that but, by inserting "yet" you indicated to him/her that you very much had been thinking about it. When the counselor asked you if you were suicidal, he/she would have known that by stating "I have never felt sucidal" that never is not "NO". You must have been in a real funk! I hope everyone made it out alive!

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:36
I agree with anon poster #1, I no longer look forward to coming to this site because of the compulsion and boiling hatred the blog author has.

Please specify what th compulsion and boiling hatrist is aimed at? I have not ready anything on this post that was not anything but truthful. That is why you continue to read here and post. What is happening is that you are unwilling to accept an opinion different than yours, so you are quick to label is hatred. You should do a little introspection and realize that your opinions posted here are respected by the blog author, yet you find the need to come and post something offensive towards him. That defines who you are, and what you represent.

Trigger said...

I don't see this problem as a malpractice issue.

This "doctor" (of a soft science) knew what this "patient" was capable of doing to other people, so did the judge, the victims family, the police, the coroner, the prosecutors, the jury, and all the government agencies involved to protect the rights of this violent man.

It is common for violent offenders to repeat violent behavior again and again until they are jailed.

Once they commit murder and get away with it, they feel like little gods.

Trigger said...

Hi Peter,

I hope that you ignore Anon 9:16's compulsive urge to take your inventory and try to invalidate all your good analysis' work at uncovering liars and pointing out the details of the lies.

Unless a person can accept honesty, integrity, and truth, they will find fault with your work.

Keep up the good work!

Lemon said...

Word to Trigger.

Anonymous said...

Trigger, go back to the last paragraph of my post at 9:16 AM. You missed the point entirely. I care about Peter very much and I DO respect him and his honesty; and with the kindest words I could muster up, I was merely cautioning him for his own sake; to be careful with practicing such utter disdain for all of our governmental agencies and those who have no choice other than to rely upon them, and that is most of us.

One day it will also be him if he isn't already dependent in some area on some branch of the government to some degree. Our Constitution and the Bill of Rights gives us the right to demand and expect certain performances by every branch of our government and we have the right to rely on them to do so. It is not free nor do we have our hands out, we pay dearly for these rights and so-called benefits.

It is one thing to point out where one is wrong in a particular circumstance, with the facts to back it up, but to blanket imply they are ALL bad and ALL wrong is something else entirely different. To think and constantly voice such anger against every faucet of every governmental agency can become the beginning of a Ruby Ridge situation, or another Waco and so on. Isn't that how they all got started before they went mad?

Didn't they first hate and mistrust the government, eventually fighting against them? No, I am NOT implying this is Peter's ultimate end, but I am saying we have to protect ourselves as to how far afield we allow ourselves to go.

Not everyone who works in government is a liar, or a taker, or a conniver who means to harm us, while we sit in self-righteous judgement of them all. Sometimes we have to accept the inevitable and move on. We have to be careful not to let these issues get inside our head, keeping us angry. It's not healthy in the long run.

I have a son who frequently does the same thing and it concerns me greatly that he spends so much valuable time being angry with all politicians, every governmental agency, and every political matter, most of which doesn't concern him or affect his life at all; nor is he involved, nor does he usually have the whole story, which none of us do. What a waste of mind power by someone so brilliant. We cannot let matters torment or affect us that we cannot change. That's all I'm saying.

Justme said...

Anon @7:48 said,

"I was merely cautioning him for his own sake; to be careful with practicing such utter disdain for all of our governmental agencies and those who have no choice other than to rely upon them, and that is most of us."

Peter is not alone in his distrust of big government.

In my many years I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a congress. - John Adams

The Utopian schemes of re-distribution of the wealth...are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown. - Samuel Adams

But, ah, think what you do when you run in debt: you give another power over your liberty. - Benjamin Franklin

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have. - Thomas Jefferson

The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases. - Thomas Jefferson

The essence of government is power, and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. - James Madison

Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. - James Madison

Etc., etc., etc.

Lemon said...

@9:16
"Peter,I doubt you have thought about this, but it appears sometimes that you are becoming compulsively hard-lined and unreasonably anti-state, anti-government and anti-political in many of the stances you take and in every way. Not trying to offend you at all, but with all due respect and good intentions, I suggest you might want to take a hard look at this compulsion for your own sake."
__________

'Peter'- personal name
'this'- shows closeness
'but'- negates what comes before
'anti' repeated 3 times, sensitive
'at all'- extra information
'Not trying to offend you' - dropped pronoun, lacks ownership, in the negative, sensitive
'but'- negates what comes before
'with all due respect and good intentions'- inclusion shows sensitivity of lack of respect/intentions
'this'- shows closeness
'for your own sake'- extra information, sensitive
compulsively/compulsion repeated

Earlier in post the words'psychiatric' (2) and
'psychiatrist'(s) (2) are repeated, which indicates sensitivity.
Also repeated earlier is 'practice(s)' (3) which indicates sensitivity.

It appears 'psychiatric/psychiatrist' and 'practice' are sensitive to the writer.

Opinion: The poster has a strong compulsion to engage and influence Peter's thinking.

Justme again said...

I'm so confused. The court that found the psychiatrist responsible for not foreseeing and preventing the murder committed by her patient, then released the homicidal patient? And that makes the court's judgement better than the doctor's how? Then we have anon who feels strongly that Peter shouldn't feel so strongly about about something. I'm sensing some double standards here.

Justme said...

I couldn't resist one more.

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty. - Thomas Jefferson

sidewalk super said...

To Justme...

More! Gimme more!


Trigger said...

Go, Justme!

I love your choice of quotes. Men of integrity can state the truth.

Lemon said...

You're looking for "Reb'nDeb's Insult Emporium" which is two blogs over, on the Left.

Have a Merry Christmas.

Hobnob said...

Lemon said...
You're looking for "Reb'nDeb's Insult Emporium" which is two blogs over, on the Left.

Have a Merry Christmas.


No Lemons, that is the blog for "Petty arguments about which room is the right room for an argument in the Monty Python sketch".

"Reb'nDeb's Insult Emporium" is 4 blogs over next door to "Bitchfest" and, umm, "The End of the World is Nigh" though i think that blog closed thursday night.
They had a big party and didn't seem concerned about any possible hangovers friday morning.

"Reb'nDeb's Insult Emporium" relocated a couple months back to a larger blog when they needed more storage space remember?

They closed the street off for 12 hours when one of their removal trucks got stuck.
If i remember correctly it was carrying Shakespearean Insults D-F.

What a palaver that was, traffic was backed up for 5 blogs in every direction.

Merry Christmas xx

Lis said...

This is an interesting case to me because there have been times when I felt like psychiatrists should be held accountable. They have great power yet no accountability. Their opinions often give the okay to release pedophiles and violent criminals who then re-offend, yet there is no scrutiny of their track record or the reliability of their judgments.

That said, I also think parole boards should be accountable for their mistakes.

Lis said...

Anon, who posted earlier, it seems you are saying that you have a son who you feel is brilliant, but you feel he is wasting himself on useless anger and maybe even paranoia about the government? (You seem to be saying that your son is 'tormented' by these things.) I agree with you that this is an unhealthy way of thinking and, although I doubt it would lead to Ruby Ridge, concentrating on all that is wrong with the world (an endless list) can lead to health problems and attitude problems and relationship problems.

Do you think you may be inferring your son's attitude when you read Peter's words? I am not seeing Peter as hard-lined or unreasonable. He has his opinions, as do others. We all have a right to our opinions. I think that to assume they are "compulsive" is inferring a lot, unless you know Peter personally, which I do not, and know something I don't see here.

I see a long-suffering attitude of someone who sees through falsehood, yet accepts that they must bear up with things as they are.

I get uncomfortable when a person suggests someone needs to change their opinions 'for their own sake.' It's a bit like taking the role of parent or adviser, or someone of a higher authority, which doesn't seem appropriate. But, I do think this would be an appropriate discussion for you, as a mother, to have with your son. Perhaps some scriptures would help to balance his frustration with the world, such as Proverbs 17:22, Isaiah 8:11-13, Philippians 4:7-9, John 16:33.

Anonymous said...

Good for them. How dare you or the almighty state tell me I have to have a long, agonizing death instead of choosing my terms, because it offends your overbearing and delicate Christian sensibilities. You won't be cleaning diapers or letting someone crush your hand while their body is wracked with the agony of bone cancer. Get over yourself. Take it up with God, but your halo isn't shiny tonight because you're too righteous to approve of euthanasia. Such hypocrisy in this country--not for abortion or euthanasia, but for gun ownership and capital punishment. Not for mercy killings but shoot someone in the face if they step into your house or are a perceived threat to you, emphasis on perceived.

Anonymous said...

kiss ass at 5:22, God forbid someone gently point out slanted blogging. How many times were Romney's lies exposed and analyzed on here? I enjoy the criminal testimonies/statements, and I am sick of the political rhetoric. Are you researching Peter's claims? Because if you are you'd be more critically minded. And no, I don't mean you'd put him down. You woukd simply seek more to challenge his views instead of giving him gold palmed validation.

Anonymous said...

10:04, the power of Bartlett's quotations are undercut by the lack of context.

Anonymous said...

Lemon, my face flames for you and your silly grasp of the obvious and that you needed to break it down that way. Anon is stating her opinion, rhetoric seeks to sway people's opinions. I did that without statement analysis or a need to feel clever.

Anonymous said...

Lis, are you being passive aggressive, self righteous or oblivious when you chastise Anon for taking on the role of adviser but then give her scripture in the role of say, counselor? pastor? advisor? You have a log in your eye, my friend.