On 6/8/2011 6:32 PM, Dennis Erlich wrote:
> No. No axe to grind. I am simply amusing myself by pointing out her
> self promotional hypocrisy.
You know, I try really hard not to take sides in the quarrel between
you and Monica. FWIW, you are right at the top of "ars participants
that I would like to have a beer with" (aptiwlthabw for those who
enjoy acronyms). But I think you are naive about the health care
system, and and I think that naivete contributes to your animosity
towards Monica.
I guarantee that Monica's vocal criticism of abusive "treatment"
antagonizes more people than kooks like Federici. There are
entrenched authorities in the educational, treatment, and legal
communities who are threatened by criticism from people like Monica.
If Monica is anything, she is self-demotional. The entrenched
authorities do *not* want to confront the issues she raises, because
they have long been complicit in the abuse she is exposing.
While it is a relatively recent development (ie since she abandoned
TFT), Monica has become a vocal advocate of evidence-based
treatment. I have long advocated the same thing, but I'm just a
noisy guy with some basic critical thinking skills. Monica has a
legitimate PhD and she has achieved real credibility within the
academic community that influences both legal and public perception.
Both need to change before the abuse Monica and others decry will
ever be eliminated. Monica is trying to influence that. That is a
Good Thing, regardless of whether or not you consider it on-topic
for ars.
Unfortunately, as long as the courts and uncritical corners of
academia are willing to accept people like Federici as experts, Joe
Public is going to assume that they know what they are talking
about. The courts, the academics, and Joe Public, are wrong.
The reality is that abusive credentialed quacks promise easy
solutions to difficult problems, and Joe Public assumes that the
they can't possibly be abusive quacks because abusive quacks
couldn't possibly be credentialed. Many years ago, several years
*before* you were raided, I had the misfortune of working with an
abusive credentialed quack in Canada. My complaints about him
eventually drew the attention of the Toronto CCHR (who decided the
quack-in-question *must* have either been a psychiatrist or
supported by psychiatrists when in fact the opposite was true), and
one thing led to another and I'm still here.
My abusive credentialed quack, like Federici, did not understand
that RESTRAINT IS NOT TREATMENT. Restraint is by definition coercive
and nonconsensual. Treatment is neither. There is no reasonable
definition of treatment that includes restraint in any form, even
without the risks associated with prone restraint. Note that I am
not suggesting restraint is never appropriate. But I am stating that
restraint is absolutely *never* treatment, no exceptions. Without
even considering the recognized risks of prone restraint.
Monica has been dragged through the courts for taking a principled
stand against Federici and people like him, who want people to
believe that coercive, nonconsensual restraint *is* treatment. You
of all people here must surely understand the impact that the whole
legal process has on one's life. You *must* know that there is much
more to this than responses to a few kook posts on ars. Monica is
not engaging in self-promotion, at least not now. Anything but.
Monica has been trying to look beyond your longstanding animosity.
Please try to do the same.
John
