So, interesting stuff. Appears this story is at the heart of Anonymous's targeting of the Boston Children's hospital..

Quote from: Philip Hickey, PhDMarch 6, 2014

Justina Pelletier is the 15-year-old girl who is at the center of a dispute between her parents and the Psychiatry Department at Boston Children's Hospital.

Justina, who lived with her parents in Connecticut, had been diagnosed with mitochondrial disease, a rare and debilitating illness, and had been receiving treatment for this from Mark Korson, MD, Chief of Metabolism Services at Tufts Medical Center in Boston.

In February of last year, Justina's parents took her to Boston Children's Hospital with flu-like symptoms.  Dr. Korson had recommended an admission to Boston Children's so that Justina could be seen by Alex Flores, MD, a gastrointestinal specialist who had recently transferred from Tufts to BCH.

But instead, Justina's care was taken over by the psychiatry department.  She was "diagnosed" with somatoform disorder ("it's-all-in-your-head"), and BCH reported the parents to the state of Massachusetts for medical child abuse.  The complaint was taken by the Department of Children and Families (DCF), and within 24 hours Judge Joseph Johnston awarded custody of Justina to the Massachusetts DCF, and ruled that she had to stay at BCH.

The parents continued to press for Justina's release from BCH, but were hampered in these efforts by a gag order that Judge Johnston had imposed.

In January of 2014, having spent almost a year in psychiatric care at BCH (nine months of which were in a locked ward), Justina was transferred to the Wayside Youth and Family Support Network in Framingham, Massachusetts.  She was still in the custody of the DCF, and still under the care of psychiatrists at Boston's Children's hospital.  In February of 2014, Justina's father, Lou Pelletier, alarmed at the deterioration in his daughter's medical condition, decided to break the gag order, and go public, despite the risk of imprisonment.  There was a huge outcry, and Massachusetts child protective services stated on February 28, 2014, that they are actively working to return Justina to Connecticut and the care of Tufts.

"The timetable for the shift of the teenager to her home state has not been set, and it is unclear just how much the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families is retreating from the girl's case. But Loftus [DCF spokesperson] said child-protection officials from both states, the juvenile judge handling the case, and lawyers for the parents are actively working on identifying a new placement in Connecticut. He would not say what places are under consideration, but in cases like this, the child could be returned back to her home, or placed in a foster home or a residential treatment facility.

If she were to live at her family's home in West Hartford, Conn., child-protection officials in that state, who would likely oversee the case, would likely demand that the girl receive services at home or that she attend a day program."

Because of the gag order, which was in place since November 17, 2013, and the official secrecy that normally attends these matters, it's difficult to establish all the facts.  But the gist of the conflict seems to be that the psychiatrists at BCH disputed the diagnosis of mitochondrial disease.  (In fact, there are indications that they may even have disputed whether such a disease even exists – an extraordinary accusation coming from psychiatry!)  They also, apparently, formed the belief that the parents were dysfunctionally invested in the notion that Justina was gravely ill, and were subjecting her to needless medicines and treatments.  During the eleven months she was at BCH, the psychiatrists placed very strict and stringent limits on how much contact the teenager could have with her family.  There's a copy of a January 8, 2014, letter here from Kathleen Higgins, RN, a former BCH employee, to the DCF Commission.  The letter provides a great deal of insightful background.

The parents protested vigorously that Justina had been taken off the medicines for mitochondrial disease, and they stated that her physical condition had deteriorated markedly during her stay at BCH.

Discussion

Somatoform disorder is a DSM-IV term.  It refers to a group of psychiatric "diagnoses," the common feature of which is "...the presence of physical symptoms that suggest a general medical condition...and are not fully explained by a general medical condition..."  (DSM-IV, p 445).  In addition, "...there is no diagnosable general medical condition to fully account for the physical symptoms." (ibid)  Like all psychiatric "diagnoses," it has no explanatory value and is nothing more than a destructive and unreliably applied label.

So essentially what's happened here is that Dr. Korson, a pediatrician who is board-certified in Clinical Biochemical Genetics, an associate professor at Tufts University School of Medicine, and a specialist in mitochondrial diseases, has been treating Justina for about three years for mitochondrial disease.  (According to the site MitoAction, "Dr. Korson is universally recognized as an expert in clinical practice for mitochondrial patients.")  He sends her to BCH for a gastrointestinal consult with Dr. Flores.  And within 24 hours, the psychiatry department hijacks her, rejects the mitochondrial disease diagnosis, substitutes a "diagnosis" of its own, files a medical abuse report with DCF, and supports a DCF petition to have Justina made a ward of the state.  Prior to all this, Justina had no mental health history of any kind.

As soon as they realized what was happening, the parents sought to remove Justina from BCH – but when the teenager became a ward of the state, that door was closed, and the judge ordered that Justina be kept at BCH.

Justina's case has focused a great deal of attention on these matters generally.  One of the points that has emerged fairly clearly is that BCH's procedure for pursuing a commitment of this kind is a well-oiled machine.  The BCH physicians and staff on the one hand, and the DCF staff on the other, work closely to prepare their cases, and the courts are usually cooperative.  Psychiatric evidence is afforded a high measure of credibility and deference, and, as in this case, the child is routinely ordered to remain at BCH.

The problem with all of this is that BCH stands to make a great deal of money on every child that is court-ordered to remain in their care.  The conflict of interest is glaring.  It's like a judge routinely sending convicted criminals to a private prison that he himself happens to own.  The difference is that any judge who engaged in activity of this sort would be looking at criminal charges and disbarment.  But in psychiatry, this sort of thing is common.

The matter is particularly compelling in that reports are emerging that BCH tends to pursue these kinds of court orders in cases where the family has "good insurance."  Justina was kept at BCH for eleven months.  I have seen no reports as to the size of the bill, but I'm sure it wasn't trivial.

BCH and Harvard

David R. DeMaso, MD, is the head of psychiatry at BCH.  He is also a professor at Harvard, and is a member of Harvard's Psychiatry Department Executive Committee. He is evidently highly regarded at the University, and has his own Harvard Catalyst page.  There's a tab on this page labeled "Similar People," and one of the people listed as "similar" to Dr. DeMaso is our old friend Joseph Biederman, MD, the eminent inventor of pediatric bipolar disorder.  This is the bogus diagnosis that legitimized the prescribing of neuroleptic drugs to children as young as two years old for temper tantrums.  Even some psychiatrists spoke out against this spurious and destructive activity, but the practice continues.  The fact that Dr. DeMaso would allow Dr. Biederman's name to remain on his Similar People tab seems noteworthy.  There is also a "connections"  page on Harvard Catalyst, listing three publications co-authored by Dr. DeMaso and Dr. Biederman.

Dr. Biederman is on record as promising Johnson & Johnson a positive result for their drug Risperdal if they would fund his study.  Why would any reputable physician allow someone like that to remain on his "Similar People" tab?

I did a PubMed search to see if there were other links between BCH psychiatrists and Joseph Biederman.  In addition to the DeMaso publications, I discovered papers co-authored by Joseph Biederman and at least two other members of the BCH Department of Psychiatry "Leadership Team:"  Joseph Gonzalez-Heydrich, MD (7 articles, as recent at 2012); and Deborah Waber, MD (3 articles, as recent at 2012).

Public Outcry

None of Justina's story would have come to light had there not been an extensive and vigorous public outcry.  This in turn would not have happened if Justina's father, Lou, had not breached the court's gag order.  The fact that our courts can effectively prohibit a parent, on pain of imprisonment, from speaking out against his child's enforced psychiatric treatment ought to be a huge concern.  Our legislative and legal systems have been hoodwinked by psychiatry for too long.  The right to free speech is our most fundamental political freedom.  The fact that a state court would so cavalierly suspend such a right to promote the agenda of BCH's psychiatry department suggests a measure of partiality on the part of the court in an area where the child's welfare ought to be the paramount consideration.  There had never been the slightest indication that Justina's parents had been abusing or neglecting her.  In fact, they brought her to BCH on the advice of the child's physician to get help for the flu-like symptoms.  By any conventional standards, they were being dutiful and attendant.  The gag order was clearly an attempt to prevent them from drawing adverse publicity to BCH's psychiatry department.  Courts are supposed to be impartial.  Why would the court in this case have assumed that the psychiatry department's motives were benign, that its "diagnoses" were valid and accurate, and that its practices were judicious and efficacious?  Why did the court not recognize the financial conflict of interest when it ordered that Justina be kept involuntarily in the locked psychiatric ward at BCH?

BCH's psychiatrists kept Justina in a locked psychiatric ward for nine months.  Apparently it never occurred to them that they might have made an error, or that they had acted too hastily. Psychiatry seldom engages in anything even remotely akin to critical self-scrutiny  .  They have resisted the parents' protests at every step of the way, and have been backed throughout by the court.  It is only because of the public outrage that the facts are emerging.  Massachusetts' Department of Public Health has called for a full investigation of the matter.  One can readily imagine the kinds of pressures that will be brought to bear to whitewash the entire affair.  Let us all, individually and collectively, do what we can to ensure that this does not happen.

Yes, and keep in mind that everyone on the 'other side' of the issue is ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN from discussing any of the particulars. Also, the article you quoted is, uh... selective about its reporting.

You will never hear about anything other than the parents' side of the story, because of HIPAA, just to start with.

Meanwhile, while the real beef of folks might be, say, the judge who ruled in the case or the justice system, it's hospitals and caregivers who were targeted.

Ratman: I've made my points and stated my stance at excruciating length. If you really care, you can go through the closed GamerGate thread.

Quote from: Will;806851Yes, and keep in mind that everyone on the 'other side' of the issue is ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN from discussing any of the particulars. Also, the article you quoted is, uh... selective about its reporting.

You will never hear about anything other than the parents' side of the story, because of HIPAA, just to start with.

Be that as it may, we know the end result of the story, which shows that the actions of the others involved were admittedly wrong, if that wasnt immediately obvious.

QuoteMeanwhile, while the real beef of folks might be, say, the judge who ruled in the case or the justice system, it's hospitals and caregivers who were targeted.

On the one hand, indeed, I agree that I don't really see targeting the entire hospital per se as a moral act of retribution, on the other I dont see what you mean the "real beef" is the judge or justice system, as it was doctors at the hospital who involved the legal system in the first place.

But I'm not informed enough on the subject to defend Anon, or to place specific unadultarated blame on any one side. I'm merely pointing out its not a black and white issue of "evil Anons harassing a children's hospital". More accurately it seems like both groups thought they were doing good, and they were probably both wrong.

Except Wayside was also targeted, because Justina Pelletier was sent there. They had pretty much nothing to do with the decision process.

Also, everyone at Children's Hospital who WEREN'T involved, and are trying to deal with kids with cancer and other problems.

Mob justice isn't justice.

Quote from: Will;806855Except Wayside was also targeted, because Justina Pelletier was sent there. They had pretty much nothing to do with the decision process. Also, everyone at Children's Hospital who WEREN'T involved, and are trying to deal with kids with cancer and other problems.

Sure, I guess at this point I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I dont condone Anon's actions, I also don't condone the actions of anyone else involved.

QuoteMob justice isn't justice.

No its not. But then the justice system isnt justice either. So what we're seeing is a whole bunch of not justice.

Quote from: TristramEvans;806798I'm continually surprised that anyone takes online death threats seriously

Some are perfectly serious, but most are like my old collection of them. Angry little keyboard warriors attempting to intimidate someone out of doing something they don't like. Which describes a great deal of the internet, but you can't really discount the psychos completely.

Quote from: Ladybird;806803And I can't see any valid reason why death threats have became a standard part of internet vocabulary.

Because the people on the other end can't kick your ass for them. A whole lot is acceptable when you don't think people know who you are. Which is itself a lousy assumption even now. You'd be surprised how people back down when you drop them their last name or some other bit of personal information they don't think you know. Not being a complete ass I generally take them through what I did to find it and explain to them why being a screaming twat is a bad idea at any time not just in real life and move along with my day. If you wouldn't say it to someone right in front of you, don't say it on the internet. Easy rule.

A better rule is if you wouldn't put it on a billboard don't say it on the internet, but people find that harder to grasp and I'm starting to wonder if kids know what billboards are.

Quote from: TristramEvans;806798I'm continually surprised that anyone takes online death threats seriously

Remember this?

What I'm saying is online death threats can really do harm at the hands of amorphous unlead movements, and an example.

Even if occasionally they target people you don't like.

Anyone who thinks online death threats shouldn't be taken seriously hasn't been paying attention in the past week or so, when a guy made online death threats and then proceeded to follow through with them, assassinating two police officers in NY.

Quote from: Will;806933Remember this?

What I'm saying is online death threats can really do harm at the hands of amorphous unlead movements, and an example.

The reactions to them do harm. Alerting the police if necessary and then getting on with your business isn't going to harm anything.

QuoteEven if occasionally they target people you don't like.

Who they target is irrelevant. I'm not supporting death threats of anyone, whether I like them or not. I'm saying they are idiotic, 99% the time the acts of children or manchilds who think internet anonimity gives them free reign to be immature dickheads. What I'm saying is giving them validation is self-destructive.

And I'm saying 'don't give them validation' when they drive vulnerable people to suicide or turn out to presage actual horrific violence (police, the MRA nutcase) is being a little flip.

Quote from: Will;806947And I'm saying 'don't give them validation' when they drive vulnerable people to suicide or turn out to presage actual horrific violence (police, the MRA nutcase) is being a little flip.

In regards to the police shooting, yes there are going to be those 1% of occurences that actually presage some nutjob doing something. That isn't typical. This isnt to say that police shouldn't be notified (I believe I already said they should) or that the police shouldnt follow up to the point they think they're a credible threat (or even if not, prosecuting them). But reactions beyond sensible measures are always going to not only validate that making online threats causes effects, encouraging them, but also create self-destructive behaviour. Panic is never the right reaction, to anything, ever. ITs the loss of maturity and intelligence to emotion. Which is pretty much every problem in the world in a nutshell.

For example, giving them validation and them driving people to suicide is basically the same thing. Reacting to things always makes them worse.

Quote from: Will;806933What I'm saying is online death threats can really do harm at the hands of amorphous unlead movements, and an example.

Even if occasionally they target people you don't like.

On this, I agree with you. But I am wary of any group of people who form a tribe mentality and consider their cause righteous enough to justify horrible behavior towards the "bad guys".

Which neither side is clean of (though I tend to think it's a problem with anon's and trolls, rather than the good actors of either side. That said, painting your opposition as solely composed of the bad actors, isn't very intellectually honest, either...)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5zKunaiCQw (Warning: Salty Language! In electronic form!)

Okay for all those who are saying what about the journalists getting harassed I have a question for you.  What about decent none harassing members of gamergate that do in fact get harass by anti-gamergate.  Even some of the journalists that you are defending had made death threats, doxing, and just general harassment towards these none harassing gamergate people.  Why are you willing to put a blind eye to that harassment, but continue to complain about the harassment that the journalists receive?  Can you not see how that looks like a double standard and makes you look like a hypocrite?

Quote from: Will;806933online death threats can really do harm at the hands of amorphous unlead movements

I got all excited about murderous undines summoning formless undead (creeping grave mold? gaseous form vampires? level draining ghostly miasmas?), and then I looked again and realized I need better reading glasses or a larger screen.

Or just to stop reading GamerGate threads.