Again after some difficulties,  again, logging into this site, I am back to share developments:
Retired I am not, but a small state pension, gives me a little more flexibility than before during 10 years of representing myself in the legal case against the detriment caused after a Public Interest Disclosure in the NHS. Due to breaches of the law during the process - beginning with the fact that I was unrepresented throughout, justice has not yet been achieved. In 2018, after Jeremy Hunt's statement before Parliament after the Gosport Enquiry, I decided to bring a new case against the UK Government for failing to protect me from those breaches of the law. Delayed by covid, this is now pending before the Court of Appeal. 
While no longer registered as a social worker, I remain available for private consultations, reports and even expert witness work in a limited field of experience - round MCA, MHA, quality of care OP,  personal independence for disabled, care planning.
​I am very pleased, that I can occasionally offer some suggestions for people struggling with issues around Continuing Care NHS funding, through the fb page 'Care to be Different' and share some insights related to the Hearing Voices Movement, on fb as well.
I also pursue my research interests - how inner resources help to overcome crises. More of that hopefully soon.
Some past papers can be found here 
https://independent.academia.edu/BarbaraSchaefer
or here:
https://www.cambridge.org/engage/coe/article-details/5fa5760efc3a990012f895c8  

without being part of any of the related denominations, from my non-religious perspective, I am delighted about the platform of 12-step-spirituality and zoom meditations:

https://www.12stepspirituality.org/,
looking for ways to further support women and a secular approach in this.

For some relatively minor health issues - as they may creep up on someone approaching 70 - I have been fortunate to use the EHIC - as an EC-citizen with Settled Status in the UK, or, as I have recently described my home for 25 years- the self-isolating island....















​

After some technical difficulties at the end of the company which hosts this site, I am sharing my submission to the Public Consultation on the Human Rights Act: My personal views and mine alone as not legally trained.
(submittted by email)
Dear Madam/Sir,please let me repeat, I am grateful for this opportunity.
Preface:
With a gap of 3 yrs, I have lived in the UK as a German national since Oct 1994. I had wanted to make this step since I was a child and loved the language and certainly since I first came to visit as a student. My love for the country and its people, however, does not render me blind to considerable structural and systemic issues in society. From 2007 to 2013, I have worked as Peripatetic Social Worker (Locum) all over England.
Since 2011, I have had to deal with a legal case I had to bring because of defamation after making a Public Interest Disclosure in  an NHS Trust (safeguarding mental health in-patient). 


I am not legally trained, but had to read CPR as there has never been a legal rep available for me. From reading, my instincts tell me the HRA has been grafted on to a century-old system that appears detailed in procedure, but has little substance on guidance for investigation. Given that impression, the explanation given on the government web site why Art 1 and 13 of the ECHR have been omitted seems very difficult to understand, almost cynical.
For reasons of those observations of CPR and live Court processes, I believe that after more than 20 years of its existence, the HRA is all to often ignored or side-lined. I seem to remember even hearing about Judges deciding in some context or other, unchallenged, they were free not to follow HRA. De facto, that has happened to me also. This to my mind shows how much cultural change and educational work in the widest sense will be necessary to truly integrate this vital piece of legislation. 
In my opinion, when a news paper (or anybody else in public life for that matter) tries to argue the HRA only served prisoners (who had lost the right to that), the Dept of Justice should immediately reprimand them and offer support how to overcome blinkers. This cannot be a matter of political view, in my opinion, but is one of upholding the law.
As far as integration of the HRA into the consciousness of even legal professionals is concerned, I have now had 10 years of a  series of breaches of Art 6 HRA - partly because I was never granted legal aid, partly because Judges more than once ignored the law and evidence, partly Barristers acting for the NHS Trust concerned causing me the detriment) were found to more than a little liberal as far as truthfulness is concerned. One of the conclusions I draw from this is to find it disputable  that the adversarial system is or could ever be compatible with the HRA.
Apart from what I see as outright breaches of Art 6 HRA, I have also encountered ample occasions of low-level undermining of even the appearance of fairness. So, when on two occasions admin staff were allowed to attempt to 'strike out' a case without Court Order - and that based on an error on their part. (In one case that was on complaint rectified by the Manager of the Court of Appeal, the complaint on the other occasion is pending). 
It is of little comfort, that such behaviour was at one point replicated by a single Judge at the ECtHR - from an Eastern European country only very recently having joined the ECHR.
The experience of unfairness was deepened by the lack of insight upon complaint at the Bar Council and Nurses' professional body.
And this assessment does not even take into account that the lack of fairness in the process was encountered - where in upholding the law the tables should have been turned - i.e. those breaching PIDA and Employment Law with unproven allegations should have been held to account, not the 'whistle-blower' forced to justify their conscientious action. In other words, breaches of Art 10 and 14 lie at the heart of what Jeremy Hunt in 2018 called a 'systemic issue' - namely the way whistle-blowers in the NHS are treated. (Therefore my case is now against the UK Govt for failing to protect me from those and the other breaches of the law).
While I have no experience of the criminal court, and have so far only read a short extract of the Secret Barrister's findings there - I fear I have to say nothing so far seems exaggerated or beyond credible.
.
As the gap between rich and poor seems to be wider in the UK than elsewhere in Western Europe I had been delighted to make a contribution to social justice through case work as a social worker. I see managing the legal case as a continuation - my most complex case.


In mental health services, especially in-patient services, I feel the borderline to degrading treatment (Art 3) is close and may frequently be crossed, where the person behind the trauma that caused their suffering is not seen, blind faith in extensive use of pharmaceutical products makes suffering worse by incapacitating the patient further  and de-facto incarceration is extended beyond a short in-patient stay in the most critical of situations.
In one Trust, where a high number of patients took their lives while on a ward, investigations did not address the question how their condition could reach or remain at such a  critical level while receiving (what kind of?) treatment - but merely the question: How could they have access to the means of taking their own lives. That in itself seems to me degrading and violating the personhood of those patients and of course, it did nothing to prevent repeats in subsequent years... 


A senior manager of the CQC admitted in a telephone conversation with me some years ago, they did not really have a mandate to assess quality of care (sic), but were merely checking paper work meeting the flimsiest of criteria. - at risk of overlooking or contributing the violation of the patients' dignity (Art 3), and that begins in subtle everyday situations, not only in those cases of maltreatment that reach the media.


Again, it seems to me, the HRA needs to be as yet fully integrated into public awareness and the structures of health care - or rather these services could and perhaps should be re-structured AROUND the principles of the ECHR.
To summarise, while I feel the paternalistic approach to culture and law had its good time and purpose, it may no longer be compatible with a democracy and if prolonged, may create unhealthy form ideology such as become apparent in the ideological self-protection of the NHS with quasi-religious status, otherwise known as systemic issues or - as an English GP to me once said, unprompted: "(elsewhere in Europe) health care management is there to facilitate, in this country it is there to block.".
Many thanks for this opportunity.
These views are mine and mine alone, compiled without outside assistance. They are expressed without resentment, based on philosophical reflection. Apologies for any typos.:-) 

• 
  
  • 
    Dear Madam/Sir,
    please let me repeat, I am grateful for this opportunity.
    Preface:
    With a gap of 3 yrs, I have lived in the UK as a German national since Oct 1994. I had wanted to make this step since I was a child and loved the language and certainly since I first came to visit as a student. My love for the country and its people, however, does not render me blind to considerable structural and systemic issues in society. From 2007 to 2013, I have worked as Peripatetic Social Worker (Locum) all over England.
    Since 2011, I have had to deal with a legal case I had to bring because of defamation after making a Public Interest Disclosure in  an NHS Trust (safeguarding mental health in-patient). 
    
    
    I am not legally trained, but had to read CPR as there has never been a legal rep available for me. From reading, my instincts tell me the HRA has been grafted on to a century-old system that appears detailed in procedure, but has little substance on guidance for investigation. Given that impression, the explanation given on the government web site why Art 1 and 13 of the ECHR have been omitted seems very difficult to understand, almost cynical.
    For reasons of those observations of CPR and live Court processes, I believe that after more than 20 years of its existence, the HRA is all to often ignored or side-lined. I seem to remember even hearing about Judges deciding in some context or other, unchallenged, they were free not to follow HRA. De facto, that has happened to me also. This to my mind shows how much cultural change and educational work in the widest sense will be necessary to truly integrate this vital piece of legislation. 
    In my opinion, when a news paper (or anybody else in public life for that matter) tries to argue the HRA only served prisoners (who had lost the right to that), the Dept of Justice should immediately reprimand them and offer support how to overcome blinkers. This cannot be a matter of political view, in my opinion, but is one of upholding the law.
    As far as integration of the HRA into the consciousness of even legal professionals is concerned, I have now had 10 years of a  series of breaches of Art 6 HRA - partly because I was never granted legal aid, partly because Judges more than once ignored the law and evidence, partly Barristers acting for the NHS Trust concerned causing me the detriment) were found to more than a little liberal as far as truthfulness is concerned. One of the conclusions I draw from this is to find it disputable  that the adversarial system is or could ever be compatible with the HRA.
    Apart from what I see as outright breaches of Art 6 HRA, I have also encountered ample occasions of low-level undermining of even the appearance of fairness. So, when on two occasions admin staff were allowed to attempt to 'strike out' a case without Court Order - and that based on an error on their part. (In one case that was on complaint rectified by the Manager of the Court of Appeal, the complaint on the other occasion is pending). 
    It is of little comfort, that such behaviour was at one point replicated by a single Judge at the ECtHR - from an Eastern European country only very recently having joined the ECHR.
    The experience of unfairness was deepened by the lack of insight upon complaint at the Bar Council and Nurses' professional body.
    And this assessment does not even take into account that the lack of fairness in the process was encountered - where in upholding the law the tables should have been turned - i.e. those breaching PIDA and Employment Law with unproven allegations should have been held to account, not the 'whistle-blower' forced to justify their conscientious action. In other words, breaches of Art 10 and 14 lie at the heart of what Jeremy Hunt in 2018 called a 'systemic issue' - namely the way whistleblowers in the NHS are treated. (Therefore my case is now against the UK Govt for failing to protect me from those and the other breaches of the law).
    While I have no experience of the criminal court, and have so far only read a short extract of the Secret Barrister's findings there - I fear I have to say nothing so far seems exaggerated or beyond credible.
    .
    As the gap between rich and poor seems to be wider in the UK than elsewhere in Western Europe I had been delighted to make a contribution to social justice through case work as a social worker. I see managing the legal case as a continuation - my most complex case.
    
    
    In mental health services, especially in-patient services, I feel the borderline to degrading treatment (Art 3) is close and may frequently be crossed, where the person behind the trauma that caused their suffering is not seen, blind faith in extensive use of pharmaceutical products makes suffering worse by incapacitating the patient further  and de-facto incarceration is extended beyond a short in-patient stay in the most critical of situations.
    In one Trust, where a high number of patients took their lives while on a ward, investigations did not address the question how their condition could reach or remain at such a  critical level while receiving (what kind of?) treatment - but merely the question: How could they have access to the means of taking their own lives. That in itself seems to me degrading and violating the personhood of those patients and of course, it did nothing to prevent repeats in subsequent years... 
    
    
    A senior manager of the CQC admitted in a telephone conversation with me some years ago, they did not really have a mandate to assess quality of care (sic), but were merely checking paper work meeting the flimsiest of criteria. - at risk of overlooking or contributing the violation of the patients' dignity (Art 3), and that begins in subtle everyday situations, not only in those cases of maltreatment that reach the media.
    
    
    Again, it seems to me, the HRA needs to be as yet fully integrated into public awareness and the structures of health care - or rather these services could and perhaps should be re-structured AROUND the principles of the ECHR.
    To summarise, while I feel the paternalistic approach to culture and law had its good time and purpose, it may no longer be compatible with a democracy and if prolonged, may create unhealthy form ideology such as become apparent in the ideological self-protection of the NHS with quasi-religious status, otherwise known as systemic issues or - as an English GP to me once said, unprompted: "(elsewhere in Europe) health care management is there to facilitate, in this country it is there to block.".
    Many thanks for this opportunity.
    These views are mine and mine alone, compiled without outside assistance. They are expressed wihtout resentment, based on philosophical reflection. Apologies for any typos.:-) 
    
    
    Kind regards,
    
    
    Barbara Schaefer MA, Director
    Beacon Social Care Ltd
    38 Northgate
    Business Centre
    Newark
    NG24 1EZ
    
    
    resident - see Electoral Roll NG24
    phone nr - available on request
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    On Monday, 19 April 2021, 21:31:43 BST, IHRAR <ihrar@justice.gov.uk> wrote:
    
    
    
    
    Thank you for your email. If you are responding to the Call for Evidence, please take this email as confirmation that your submission has been received. Unless an exception has been pre-agreed with the Panel, it will be published as soon as is practicable on the IHRAR webpage. For other enquiries, we will respond as soon as we can.This e-mail and any attachments is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail. This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. Monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
    
    
    • 
      
    • 
      
      
    • 
      
    • 
      
    
    
    
  
  
  
  
  
  26
  
  
  
  
  
  Settings
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Dear Madam/Sir,
  please let me repeat, I am grateful for this opportunity.
  Preface:
  With a gap of 3 yrs, I have lived in the UK as a German national since Oct 1994. I had wanted to make this step since I was a child and loved the language and certainly since I first came to visit as a student. My love for the country and its people, however, does not render me blind to considerable structural and systemic issues in society. From 2007 to 2013, I have worked as Peripatetic Social Worker (Locum) all over England.
  Since 2011, I have had to deal with a legal case I had to bring because of defamation after making a Public Interest Disclosure in  an NHS Trust (safeguarding mental health in-patient). 
  
  
  I am not legally trained, but had to read CPR as there has never been a legal rep available for me. From reading, my instincts tell me the HRA has been grafted on to a century-old system that appears detailed in procedure, but has little substance on guidance for investigation. Given that impression, the explanation given on the government web site why Art 1 and 13 of the ECHR have been omitted seems very difficult to understand, almost cynical.
  For reasons of those observations of CPR and live Court processes, I believe that after more than 20 years of its existence, the HRA is all to often ignored or side-lined. I seem to remember even hearing about Judges deciding in some context or other, unchallenged, they were free not to follow HRA. De facto, that has happened to me also. This to my mind shows how much cultural change and educational work in the widest sense will be necessary to truly integrate this vital piece of legislation. 
  In my opinion, when a news paper (or anybody else in public life for that matter) tries to argue the HRA only served prisoners (who had lost the right to that), the Dept of Justice should immediately reprimand them and offer support how to overcome blinkers. This cannot be a matter of political view, in my opinion, but is one of upholding the law.
  As far as integration of the HRA into the consciousness of even legal professionals is concerned, I have now had 10 years of a  series of breaches of Art 6 HRA - partly because I was never granted legal aid, partly because Judges more than once ignored the law and evidence, partly Barristers acting for the NHS Trust concerned causing me the detriment) were found to more than a little liberal as far as truthfulness is concerned. One of the conclusions I draw from this is to find it disputable  that the adversarial system is or could ever be compatible with the HRA.
  Apart from what I see as outright breaches of Art 6 HRA, I have also encountered ample occasions of low-level undermining of even the appearance of fairness. So, when on two occasions admin staff were allowed to attempt to 'strike out' a case without Court Order - and that based on an error on their part. (In one case that was on complaint rectified by the Manager of the Court of Appeal, the complaint on the other occasion is pending). 
  It is of little comfort, that such behaviour was at one point replicated by a single Judge at the ECtHR - from an Eastern European country only very recently having joined the ECHR.
  The experience of unfairness was deepened by the lack of insight upon complaint at the Bar Council and Nurses' professional body.
  And this assessment does not even take into account that the lack of fairness in the process was encountered - where in upholding the law the tables should have been turned - i.e. those breaching PIDA and Employment Law with unproven allegations should have been held to account, not the 'whistle-blower' forced to justify their conscientious action. In other words, breaches of Art 10 and 14 lie at the heart of what Jeremy Hunt in 2018 called a 'systemic issue' - namely the way whistleblowers in the NHS are treated. (Therefore my case is now against the UK Govt for failing to protect me from those and the other breaches of the law).
  While I have no experience of the criminal court, and have so far only read a short extract of the Secret Barrister's findings there - I fear I have to say nothing so far seems exaggerated or beyond credible.
  .
  As the gap between rich and poor seems to be wider in the UK than elsewhere in Western Europe I had been delighted to make a contribution to social justice through case work as a social worker. I see managing the legal case as a continuation - my most complex case.
  
  
  In mental health services, especially in-patient services, I feel the borderline to degrading treatment (Art 3) is close and may frequently be crossed, where the person behind the trauma that caused their suffering is not seen, blind faith in extensive use of pharmaceutical products makes suffering worse by incapacitating the patient further  and de-facto incarceration is extended beyond a short in-patient stay in the most critical of situations.
  In one Trust, where a high number of patients took their lives while on a ward, investigations did not address the question how their condition could reach or remain at such a  critical level while receiving (what kind of?) treatment - but merely the question: How could they have access to the means of taking their own lives. That in itself seems to me degrading and violating the personhood of those patients and of course, it did nothing to prevent repeats in subsequent years... 
  
  
  A senior manager of the CQC admitted in a telephone conversation with me some years ago, they did not really have a mandate to assess quality of care (sic), but were merely checking paper work meeting the flimsiest of criteria. - at risk of overlooking or contributing the violation of the patients' dignity (Art 3), and that begins in subtle everyday situations, not only in those cases of maltreatment that reach the media.
  
  
  Again, it seems to me, the HRA needs to be as yet fully integrated into public awareness and the structures of health care - or rather these services could and perhaps should be re-structured AROUND the principles of the ECHR.
  To summarise, while I feel the paternalistic approach to culture and law had its good time and purpose, it may no longer be compatible with a democracy and if prolonged, may create unhealthy form ideology such as become apparent in the ideological self-protection of the NHS with quasi-religious status, otherwise known as systemic issues or - as an English GP to me once said, unprompted: "(elsewhere in Europe) health care management is there to facilitate, in this country it is there to block.".
  Many thanks for this opportunity.
  These views are mine and mine alone, compiled without outside assistance. They are expressed wihtout resentment, based on philosophical reflection. Apologies for any typos.:-) 
  
  
  Kind regards,
  
  
  Barbara Schaefer MA, Director
  Beacon Social Care Ltd
  38 Northgate
  Business Centre
  Newark
  NG24 1EZ
  
  
  resident - see Electoral Roll NG24
  phone nr - available on request
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  On Monday, 19 April 2021, 21:31:43 BST, IHRAR <ihrar@justice.gov.uk> wrote:
  
  
  
  
  Thank you for your email. If you are responding to the Call for Evidence, please take this email as confirmation that your submission has been received. Unless an exception has been pre-agreed with the Panel, it will be published as soon as is practicable on the IHRAR webpage. For other enquiries, we will respond as soon as we can.This e-mail and any attachments is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail. This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. Monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
  
  
  • 
    
  • 
    
    
  • 
    
  • 
    
  
  
  

26





Settings

Chris Whitty appeared in my fb feed today and made me wish he had been on the small screen every day since last Feb, sharing his knowledge, instead of having to leave the stage to (whoever). And that is not to say, I agree with the slogan 'protect the NHS. As another service user said the other day: The NHS should be protecting us - not the other way round.  The NHS should not be starved of capacity - and by that mean more than bed numbers und Consultants. - AS for vaccination roll-out: Wouldn't the grown-up message to get to the public be: Get your information from reliable sources, weigh risk and benefit and then decide for yourself if you take it? At least that would be taking the wind out of the sails of trolling anti-vaxxers. .PS Personally, I won't for the time being, - not least because I herd PHE's Dr Ramsay publicly deny there was evidence for the risk in Pfizer's. allowing people with allergies in with the argument 'we are standing by in case you have an anaphylactic shock' is in my view an example for the NHS lacking mental capacity to care for people. 

Verbal abuse and even threat of violence toward NHS-workers is, of course,  appalling but unless you look at what may be happening in a wider context it's not going to be resolved. I humbly submit the following thoughts for consideration: There is a surface level and a systemic level to confrontations, just as wars can't be understood while you are in the trenches. Here: The frontline workers are target of the pent-up frustration, mostly unaware, of people who may not have the education to differentiate, - frustration with a system that has been dysfunctional through denial and mismanagement for many years. Mostly in plain sight so. Of course this is no justification for insults or worse. I am talking about analysing what is going on: E.g. one scandal after the other, many patients dying at least prematurely (Gosport).If a boil is not surgically treated, it may break open and, at worst, pus may sink in deeper ... In 2018 Jeremy , then Secretary of State for Health no less, acknowledged 'systemic issues' in the NHS. Only then, for all I know,  to return to his desk the next morning as if that had nothing to do with him, or as if the acknowledgment was enough. A sticking plaster on a boil. . Now, that in itself is a systemic issue...

The other day, one of those quotes showed up in my fb feed  that come round to help people keep their spirits up - especially  during the pandemic. This one began with more attention is being given to relationships (than to possessions). Fine by me. Only then it went on and ended more or less saying, it's only our nearest and dearest and their wellbeing that matters. Hold on: When you know how it feels to worry about a loved one being or getting sick - doesn't your heart almost automatically go out to all those in the same situation? Or try the other way round: What often helps when anxious is - knowing that I am not alone. I can be physically alone, but I am not alone in this. - The heart reaches out, and then the mind goes on to find allies to do something, SOME thing to improve whatever concerns most about the situation. NOT wanting to do THAT could be called defeatism or - depression. To overcome that type of reaction may be the first step...

My previous post was the letter to the Journal of Medical Ethics as first designed. Before I was able to get it to the correct editor, this happened and a paragraph was added:
letter to the Journal of Medical Ethics (part of the BMJ) sent Jan 11, 2021:

Dear Editor,
(So far my initial comment...)
... after I found the video interview where Dr Mary Ramsey for PHE declares the safety of vaccines, I felt prompted to do a little research and - surprise, surprise: The first academic paper I found, from 2016, states that allergies to PEG will most likely be underdiagnosed. (I can provide that link from a fb post later if required; today a follow-up reference: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303372103_Immediate-type_hypersensitivity_to_polyethylene_glycols_PEGs_a_review).
Would it be fair to say that, given Dr Ramsay's position she could or even should have known of these findings? If at least one of those points is answered in the affirmative, then we have here a situation where, I am inclined to argue, an overcoming of epistemic injustice is actively prevented. Trustworthiness of a public authority rests on credibility, and that, like 'following the science' means in my understanding weighing the evidence one can reasonably have access to - not denying it.
Thank you.

Upon seeing an article in a journal on Medical Ethics@BMJ, I felt compelled to write to the editor Dear Editor, 
having scanned the article  by Julian S, philosopher in Oxford no less, in your journal's edition from Nov 2020 as I became aware of it just now, I feel I need to comment: The mandate to prevent harm from others requires a reasonable amount of knowledge what the risk to self is. To use a narrative extract from an autoethnographic case study as example:
"... what those people who experienced serious reaction to the covid vaccine are believed to have reacted to is an emulsifier called PEG -polyethylenglycol which sounds harmless enough. I was tested for allergies comprehensively by a very thorough specialist in Ger in 1996 and that because of a series of very light reactions to at that point unknown substances (potentially skin creams). I dare to assert that in the UK where I have lived for 20 years and worked in multidisciplinary health settings the first thing people would know about such an allergy would be if they suffered an anaphylactic shock. Prior to that most people would only/at best have been prescribed cortisone. I believe here enters what M. Fricker, UK philosopher in NY, calls epistemic injustice inherent in a system of health inequalities as prevalent in the UK and an approach to behaviourism in clinical practice I politely call blinkered. ":

As a Social Care Consultant, I remain available for Consultation to assist clients' self management and professionals' training to that end.
My own lived experience stems from surviving persistent emotional abuse in childhood - with a deep sense of meaning. I have always believed that humans are intrinsically good and that we all have the innate resources to recover. Psychodrama with a truly client-centred coach brought this to the fore some 35 years ago. Since then, I have done considerable research into intuition and insight facilitating presence to self as a process - and, yet more importantly, as a social worker I have shown how this approach helped clients who were all but written-off by the typical mainstream services. The greatest praise: One such client said to me 'I can talk to you because you are not afraid.' The greatest challenge: The conscientious decision to see through a legal case for defamation after Whistleblowing in NHS Mental Health Safeguarding: 'Better a break in your career than in your spine.'
I look forward to hearing from you.
P.S. One key moment connecting insights was ca 2007 hearing Jacqui Dillon, now Dr. JD, say at a Conference: We are all on the spectrum of human experience.
​

Force feeding not in anorexia patient's best interests - UK Human Rights Blog, (Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB [2020] EWCOP 40)

Force feeding not in anorexia patient's best interests - UK Human Rights...Patient suffering from extreme eating disorder found not to have capacity, but further gastro-nasal feeding was ...
One commentator on the Human Rights Blog  argues the case  had been about whether the patient had the mental capacity to decide against force-feeding..With respect, this kind of reducing matters to fine legal points in my eyes means removing substance and context from the case. Formally they may have been right. But what is Justice for if not decide real-life cases:The Trust would not have argued that the patient did not have capacity if it was not for the fact they, the Doctors, thought they knew what was best for the patient (in her best interest). It would be interesting to see whether the Judge did consider that these were Doctors who had been unable to treat  the patient with any success for years, and if so in what light:. Commonly, under prevalent psychiatric concepts the patient is seen as the problem and as resisting therapy. Increasingly, and rightly in my view, survivors of such treatment who found other means to get better, argue that instead of asking 'what's wrong with you' - the  question 'what happened to you' should be asked. In-depth psycho-social and cultural investigation would at least have the chance to enable the patient to see her stuckness as socially constructed.
While the Judgment may be preferred over the alternative in this case (which would have been to allow force-feeding) it seems to me, ultimately, the Judge may still have failed to address the causes and the context: The Trust, the doctors, in this case seem already far removed from thinking about the patient's best interest. Justice, perhaps with the help of expert witnesses, looking deeply at the reality of either application in this case might have contributed to reversing that, might have applied human wisdom:
The Doctors would not need to be force-fed, only encouraged to seek treatment  options the patient could agree on. Since it can be assumed that they have the capacity to do so, it seems to be negligent not to do so. I do not know what if any psycho-social interventions were tried in the case at hand. However, I deduct from the fact that the Doctors (and the Trust) arrived the view they did (about force-feeding being in the patient's best interest) and also from my own experience working with Psychiatrists and other medically oriented mental health professionals: Where the investigation how to help a human in their care does not cast a wide net reaching all their life circumstances and human reasons for those, the ethical roots of  do not reach deep enough to be nourished by the desire to truly support a valued independent life and vice versa. 
I have met one exception - a young female Doctor who maintained a deeply human approach even while the system in which she worked did not give her any tools to apply it. She, of course, too ended up feeding a system that worked against her. deepest intentions.