I’m not saying it’s true or not true, but what exactly would she need to show to prove it’s credible? Like what would be the credible version of this if a similar situation occurred and it was completely true? How would it seem different?
It makes sense the case was dismissed if it was because there was a reasonable request for her to sit for a psychiatric examination and she’s saying it caused mental health issues and that’s part of the damages and she wouldn’t do the examination.
But plenty of people would avoid a psychiatric exam just because of fear of psychiatry. In order to commit someone or give them a new diagnosis, a psychiatrist has to meet with someone. She could have been concerned about bias, she may have been concerned that if she was labeled a certain way she could be committed, she may have also been over-medicated and treated poorly by the mental health profession before.
She also, based on her online posts, clearly is afraid of being killed and someone making it look like she was just unstable. And this is in the shadow of that open AI whistleblower mysteriously “committing suicide” when everyone who knows him thinks he wouldn’t do that. I am just saying she may have valid fears, like such an examination being used to try to commit her when that isn’t appropriate. Keep in mind, psychiatry was awarded the Nobel Prize for lobotomies less than 100 years ago ago (or technically a psychiatrist was, but lobotomies were widely praised and embraced by the profession for decades). It’s not exactly a profession that is a paragon of ethics that admits to being wrong when it is.
For many people who suffer from emotional issues following trauma and seek out psychiatry, they end up over-medicated, given a panoply of labels they don’t always feel helpful, and sometimes get taken advantage of financially. This is especially true for people who have dealt with involuntary care. It’s also my personal belief that people who experience sexual assault or rape and then see a psychiatrist are more likely to get wrongly diagnosed with something inappropriate because trauma can lead to behaviors that can sometimes look like other psychiatric issues. I don’t know what her experiences have been, I just think we can’t know her reasons for not doing this exam.
This happened so long ago. What clear proof should she have from back then that she doesn’t? I think saying this lacks credibility is confusing to me when it’s very difficult to know either way. It also seems like her family was helping her financially and she was in a position to get a lot of financial help and filing suit might make that less likely. You’re also saying this is about a pay day, but given the length of time, it’s not like she could file criminal charges that could get prosecuted. A civil suit was all she had.
I’m not saying it’s true or not true, but what exactly would she need to show to prove it’s credible? Like what would be the credible version of this if a similar situation occurred and it was completely true? How would it seem different?
It makes sense the case was dismissed if it was because there was a reasonable request for her to sit for a psychiatric examination and she’s saying it caused mental health issues and that’s part of the damages and she wouldn’t do the examination.
But plenty of people would avoid a psychiatric exam just because of fear of psychiatry. In order to commit someone or give them a new diagnosis, a psychiatrist has to meet with someone. She could have been concerned about bias, she may have been concerned that if she was labeled a certain way she could be committed, she may have also been over-medicated and treated poorly by the mental health profession before.
She also, based on her online posts, clearly is afraid of being killed and someone making it look like she was just unstable. And this is in the shadow of that open AI whistleblower mysteriously “committing suicide” when everyone who knows him thinks he wouldn’t do that. I am just saying she may have valid fears, like such an examination being used to try to commit her when that isn’t appropriate. Keep in mind, psychiatry was awarded the Nobel Prize for lobotomies less than 100 years ago ago (or technically a psychiatrist was, but lobotomies were widely praised and embraced by the profession for decades). It’s not exactly a profession that is a paragon of ethics that admits to being wrong when it is.
For many people who suffer from emotional issues following trauma and seek out psychiatry, they end up over-medicated, given a panoply of labels they don’t always feel helpful, and sometimes get taken advantage of financially. This is especially true for people who have dealt with involuntary care. It’s also my personal belief that people who experience sexual assault or rape and then see a psychiatrist are more likely to get wrongly diagnosed with something inappropriate because trauma can lead to behaviors that can sometimes look like other psychiatric issues. I don’t know what her experiences have been, I just think we can’t know her reasons for not doing this exam.
This happened so long ago. What clear proof should she have from back then that she doesn’t? I think saying this lacks credibility is confusing to me when it’s very difficult to know either way. It also seems like her family was helping her financially and she was in a position to get a lot of financial help and filing suit might make that less likely. You’re also saying this is about a pay day, but given the length of time, it’s not like she could file criminal charges that could get prosecuted. A civil suit was all she had.