Stockholm Syndrome and Vancouver Coastal Health

I keep thinking of how Vancouver Coastal Health and I became at odds.  They were the oppressors and they relied on the Stockholm Syndrome to cancel out their psychological harassment (like a wife batterer).  I succumbed to this so many times that VCH just continued their bad bahavior, an amusement on their part.  A game they always win.  I have asked since 2011 for an independent investigation as to VCH's behavior and in 2015 I received an email from Richard Singleton that he had investigated my concerns.  Richard is not an independent investigator he is a mental health worker who is an expert at using the Stockholm Syndrome to control risk even if that meant discrediting others. This man who was responsible for Randy's life and investigating my allegations of non treatment and illegal DNRs finally made the decision that VCH did nothing wrong (at least, not in his mind).

Randy was chronically ill.  VCH did not have to hasten his death.

Stockholm syndrome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For other uses, see Stockholm syndrome (disambiguation).

Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with the captors. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness.^[1][2] The FBI's Hostage Barricade Database System shows that roughly eight percent of victims show evidence of Stockholm syndrome.^[3]
Stockholm syndrome can be seen as a form of traumatic bonding, which does not necessarily require a hostage scenario, but which describes "strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other."^[4] One commonly used hypothesis to explain the effect of Stockholm syndrome is based on Freudian theory. It suggests that the bonding is the individual's response to trauma in becoming a victim. Identifying with the aggressor is one way that the ego defends itself. When a victim believes the same values as the aggressor, they cease to be perceived as a threat.<sup>[5]

audreyjlaferriere@gmail.com
604-321-2276
5976 Cambie Street
 Vancouver BC   V5Z 3A9
.
Donations to keep blog going and to fund legal fees to sue those doctors responsible for putting illegal DNRs on Randy appreciated.  This isn't personal; this is a public interest issue wherein all of us should know how the health system is taking advantage of us..</sup>
 

Blue Bloods and VPD

Up until a few days a go, I wanted to believe that theTV show Blue Bloods was what VPD was about.  But I was wrong. I am so disappointed. When you can't trust the police to fully investigate a complaint, and you can't trust the medical establishment to fully investigate a complaint, who can you trust.

It is taking me a long time to get over that.

The best I can do is take up knitting leg warmers and give them to the homeless.  Since legt warmers have no feet, they can be worn under pants to keep the homeless warm and they need no washing.  It is a project I wanted to do years ago and now it seems to be a good time to do it.
.

The Rise of History's Biggest Empire

Storyline

The new documentary titled The Rise of History's Biggest Empire explores the origins and current mechanics behind America's forceful dominance on the world stage. According to the views expressed in the film, the United States frequently hides behind the guise of diplomacy and democratic outreach in its quest to force its will upon foreign regions throughout the globe. The wealthiest interests are the primary beneficiaries of these actions while the less fortunate are discarded and marginalized as never before.
Throughout history, the American empire has been established and sustained through episodes of intervention - usually in the form of military might - in places like the Middle East, Latin America, and even within its own borders. The film sets forth a series of examples in support of its thesis, including incendiary actions in Guatemala in 1952, Chile in the 1970's, and the invasion of Iraq in the past decade.
In some of the instances presented in the film, the United States operates in shadow to overthrow democratically elected leaders and to replace them with figures who are more sympathetic to U.S. interests. These interests are often not in step with those of their own people.
Another area of controversy explored in the film regards the countless military bases operated by the United States all over the world. The messages received from the highest levels of governmental authority assure the people that these bases are erected and continue to operate as a means of spreading and maintaining peace throughout each region. "These bases all too often are actually increasing military tensions," claims David Vine, an anthropology professor at American University, author of Base Nation, and a key interview subject in the film. "I think it's worth considering for people in the United States how we would feel with a foreign base on our soil."
The premiere episode of an investigative series from world news organization teleSUR, The Rise of History's Biggest Empire is a compact treatment of a complex history. Nevertheless, as with all worthwhile documentary works, the film presents its provocative material in a manner that inspires valuable thought and discussion.

Public mostly unaware of the pending Euthanasia Law in Canada

I still find it hard to believe that most people I speak do not know about the pending euthanasia law.  They do not even know what a DNR is.  So how can this nightmare be happening.  No one seems to trust doctors and yet we are giving them legal license to help someone commit suicide.  This law can also be used by hospital administrations (and the government) to hasten death in order to save a few dollars.

The consultation process is a joke; it is only a public relations vehicle that is being manipulated by the pro euthanasia lobby.  And who are those who want euthanasia: they are predominately white, middle aged, educated professionals who are control freaks wanting a safe and painless death with the help of a doctor.  The rest of us will be collateral damage.

Giving doctors the power to cause your death assumes that all doctors are ethical and all acts with be done within the law.  This a a big assumption and carries no guarantees.  Safeguards cannot stop human nature from make mistakes.  It was for this reason that capital punishment was eradicated.

As for capacity, the definition rests with the doctors.



.

Euthanasia dead in Britain 11 September 2015

Saturday, 12 September 2015

Defeat of the Marris Assisted Dying Bill – some reflections on how MPs voted

The Assisted Dying (No 2) Bill of Labour MP Rob Marris was the eleventh attempt in twelve years to legalise assisted suicide through British Parliaments.

But its overwhelming defeat yesterday (11 September 2015) by a margin of 212 votes (330 to 118) should settle this matter for a decade.

It is striking (and indeed fitting) that this happened the very day after World Suicide Prevention Day. The bill now cannot proceed further. It is dead.

There is clearly no chance at all of a similar bill passing through the Commons in the current parliament and even in the (now) unlikely event of a Labour victory in 2020 it is virtually inconceivable that the views of MPs will change enough to make it likely in the next parliament either.

MPs dealt the bill a resounding defeat largely driven by concerns about the risks it posed to vulnerable people who would have felt under pressure to end their lives so as not to be a burden to family, relatives, caregivers or a society short of resources. Six in ten who die under a similar law in Washington State US give this reason.

Overall 74% of MPs voted against the bill, a proportion almost identical to the 72% who opposed the last bill of its kind in the House of Commons in 1997. So there has been essentially no shift in parliamentary opinion in the last 20 years.

Rob Marris conceded in a BBC interview after the debate that he did not foresee another attempt in the Commons in this parliament and in fact called on the government to invest more in palliative care, a move which I would strongly support. Patients whose symptoms are properly controlled do not generally want help to kill themselves. 

You can read the full four hour parliamentary debate on Hansard and see reaction to the result on you tube along with my comments on what it means.

The Daily Mail has also given a full list of how MPs voted by party which I have reproduced below.

Overall out of 650 MPs, a total of 448 took part in the vote.

118 MPs supported the bill (27 Conservative, 72 Labour, 14 SNP, 3 Lib Dem and 1 Green).

330 voted against it (210 Conservative, 91 Labour, 11 SNP, 3 Lib Dem, 1 UKIP, 8 DUP, 3 SDLP, 1 Independent).

Here are some preliminary quick reflections on how people voted.

1. This was a huge (almost unprecedented) turnout considering this was a private member’s bill debate on a Friday when most MPs would be expected to be in their local constituencies. It is a measure of how important they considered the issue to be. 

2. Over half of all MPs (330) voted against it meaning that it would have been defeated even if all 650 MPs had been present.

3. More Labour MPs (91) voted against the bill than supported it (72) and the SNP and Lib Dems were more or less evenly split. This is hugely significant as it signals that assisted suicide is not a simple left/right political issue. In fact suicide prevention and protection of vulnerable people from exploitation and abuse resonate strongly with left wing politicians.

4. Most party leaders did not vote. Prime Minister David Cameron (Conservative) was not present. Nor was Tim Farron (Lib Dem), Angus Robertson (SNP) or Jeremy Corbyn (Labour). However all four had previously signalled their opposition to the bill.

5. Former Labour leaders and Blairites generally supported the bill. These included former Labour leader Ed Miliband and Deputy Leader (and recently acting Leader) Harriet Harman.

6. Medically qualified MPs were generally strongly opposed, notably former cabinet minister Liam Fox (Conservative), Sarah Woollaston (Conservative) and SNP health spokesperson Philippa Whitford.

7. Many current cabinet ministers opposed the Bill including Theresa May (Home Secretary), Michael Fallon (Defence), Michael Gove (Lord Chancellor), Iain Duncan Smith (Work and Pensions), Jeremy Hunt (Health), Chris Grayling (Leader of the House of Commons), Justine Greening (International Development), Patrick McLoughlin (Transport), Theresa Villiers (Northern Ireland), Stephen Crabb (Wales), Oliver Letwin (Duchy of Lancaster), David Mundell (Scotland), Robert Halfon (without portfolio), Greg Hands (Treasury),  Mark Harper (Chief Whip) and Jeremy Wright (Attorney General).

8. Other prominent MPs who opposed the bill included former London Mayor Boris Johnson, former Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, former Attorney General Dominic Grieve, former Conservative cabinet ministers Eric Pickles and Peter Bottomley and former Labour Cabinet ministers Alan Johnson and David Lammy.

9. Former Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Keir Starmer, now a Labour MP, voted in favour of the bill. Perhaps this explains his apparent reluctance to prosecute people whilst in office. It will certainly raise further discussion about whether or not his published prosecution criteria amounted to stealth legalisation.

re number 9:

Is this what they are doing in BC re illegal DNRs resulting in death: not prosecuting doctors. There has to be others besides me who have complained about illegel DNRs.

the Vancouver Province and Elaine Peaston v. BC College of Physicians and Surgeons

I tried to find out more about Elaine Peaston vs BC College of Physicians and Surgeons (see post August 29 2015) and I searched the Province newspaper for her name.  Quess what.  I could not find it in the Province search function.  It is gone like it never was there.  It reminded me of wanting to find out what happened to Mary Turner in 2013.  I put an ad in the Prince George paper and it was to be on-line.  I could not find it.   VCH knew I wanted to know what happened to Mary and now Elaines litigation is not on its database.  When I checked the court registry on Randys case to find Dr. Dunnes Affidavit and the Affidavit of Kip Woodwards secretary, both were missing.  Is this called damage control. Well, I can only speculate that the medical establishment seems to have tremendous power with the courts and the press.

I feel vomitoid.

PS Sept 2 2015, I found the Province article on a post. Elaines segment had  5,322,247 page views. So much for damage control. I hope she is aware of what happened was read by millions.  Why cannot doctors tell the truth and then there would be no need for risk management departments to hide the truth (evidence). To think the College of Physicians and Surgeons might have gone that far to protect itself.  But then it might have been Elaine who did not want it in the newspapers.  I do not know. 


What tangled webs we weave when we set out to deceive.


from Voice of Gone Ballistic blog September 1 2015
Audrey Jane Laferriere
5976 Cambie Steet
Vancouver, BC
604.321.2276;778.689.2276
amended 3 Septemer 2015



see Bullyville.com partners with Guns N'Roses Lead Guitarist DJ Ashba, search Elaine Peaston BullyVille.com

page views at September 4, 2015 at 7;00 pm :5,336,289

How many of you are aware of what is happening to Planned Parenthood in the United States.  It is going to be the end of Hillary Clinton.  Planned Parenthood is a non-profit but it gets half of its yearly $billion budget from the US government to do abortions.  It also sells aborted baby parts (see videos).  I can not find any information on this aspect of Planned Parenthood in the Canadian media but it is on the internet and LifeNews is a good source.The President of Planned Parenthood and her high level executives who are not even doctors make more money than the President of the United States.


.

.


.

.



.

Trust the medical profession, I think not.

I was psychologically harassed (bullied) by George Pearson Center and Risk Management Vancouver General Hospital for years, It is not bullying to them, it is just the way it is and has always been.--and then I read the article below.  The harassment starts at the very top.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following an article from the Vancouver Province. And the College Physicians and Surgeons

A former top official at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. is suing her former bosses for wrongful dismissal, alleging she was harassed and bullied on the job.

Elaine Peaston, the deputy registrar of the college’s legal department, names college registrar Dr. Heidi Oetter and Michael Epp, the chief operating officer, as defendants along with the college.

She says that in the spring of 2009, as a result of a significant increase in work hours and responsibilities, she began to experience depression and stress and felt generally overwhelmed.

In a notice of civil claim filed in B.C. Supreme Court, Peaston says her doctor wrote a note to the college stating that for medical reasons she needed to limit her work schedule.

Oetter and the college ignored the note and refused to accommodate her medical needs, says Peaston, who was hired by the college initially in 1994 and became a deputy registrar in 2004.

In January 2010, her condition had not improved, another medical letter was sent to the college and she provided “considerable detail” about her issues, thereby exposing her vulnerabilities in expectation Oetter wouldn’t harass or bully her, she says.

The college, the regulatory body for B.C.’s doctors, still refused to accommodate her medical problems and in the summer of 2011, the workload increased and she had to cancel her holidays.

She sought legal advice on how to deal with what she calls the “growing culture” within the college of hostility directed by other departments at her department.

Then a dispute arose over staffing levels and she asked whether Oetter was trying to get rid of her but was told everything was fine, she says.

Concerns came up about a performance evaluation that Peaston said was “devastating” and inconsistent with assessments and comments from other college officials.

A former president of the college described Oetter’s conduct as bullying, she says.

The writ describes what it calls ongoing harassment, bullying and intentional infliction of mental distress from January to June 2012.

Oetter and Epp directed resources away from the legal department, leading to two stress leaves, it says.

The stress was exacerbated by sexual and non-sexual harassment by a staff member of a female employee of the legal department.

While the harassed employee did not report the incidents due to the environment created by Oetter and Epp, others did report it but nothing was done, says the writ.

Peaston met with Epp to discuss the reductions and was advised that “When Heidi asks you to jump, the only question is how high,” the plaintiff says.

On June 8, 2012, she says she suffered a breakdown and took medical leave.

She was told that she could remain on the job part-time but to stay in her current job she’d have to work more hours, an assertion that caused her “great distress.”

At the direction of Oetter and Epp, the college blocked her access to her work computer network, including her emails and disconnected her voice-mail access to her cellphone, she says.

She filed a complaint that she’d been bullied and harassed and an investigation was conducted but the college did not disclose the results, she says.

“The court will be asked to draw the reasonable inference that the complaints as made by Ms. Peaston have been substantiated.”

In February this year, she was fired and the college said in a letter that her allegation that Oetter had acted in a manner unbecoming of the profession was “unfounded and irreparably” damaged her employment relationship.

But in a letter in March, the college admitted Peaston had not alleged the registrar had acted in an unprofessional manner, Peaston says.

The “illusory” basis for the termination was devised to disguise the fact that the college’s decision to terminate her was in retaliation for the complaints she filed, she adds.

“As a result of the defendant’s intentional or reckless infliction of mental distress, intimidation, bullying and retaliation, the plaintiff has and continues to suffer from psychological and psychiatric injuries including major depression.”

Peaston is seeking unspecified damages for the alleged bullying and harassment and punitive, aggravated and “moral” damages.

In an email, the college said it was aware of the lawsuit.

“The College completely and strongly denies the allegations of wrongdoing contained in the claim and is confident that it will be properly adjudicated by the court. As the matter is before the court, the College will not make any further comment about the claim at this time.”



Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/news/Former+official+College+Physicians+says+bullied+sues+bosses+wrongful+dismissal/8317003/story.html#ixzz2S3BK99pH
Read more at http://www.bullyville.com/?page=story&id=6448#xr8AH8qVrFys4E9I.99

Bullyville.com partners with Guns N'Roses Lead Guitarist DJ Ashba.