Gemma not taking enforced retirement too well

knucklehead6

PhoneMain wrote: »

Fair enough if that's what you think but what makes you think I'm not? I could give you my MCRN but I'm not identifying myself on an anomymous website.

I'll refer you to the thread in AH about people who tell you how honest they are

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058131039

Anyone who starts unprompted waffling on about how honest they are or their career immediately sets alarm bells ringing

Killinator

PhoneMain wrote: »

That's hardly serious harm.

Would it be correct as well to state that it doesn't matter even if you did consider that serious harm as Dr has to assess in person and the person being assessed has to be an immediate risk there and then, not from some previous time.

No doubt that if you got a doctor to assess her she would be able to act perfectly normal to the point no Dr could say she was an immediate threat to herself or others.

ancapailldorcha

PhoneMain wrote: »

That's hardly serious harm.

It's completely unacceptable in the middle of a pandemic. I wouldn't be averse to considering it a form of assault. Why you're defending this is beyond me frankly.

Sardonicat

PhoneMain wrote: »

That's hardly serious harm.

No? If she did it to my Dad she''d get a lesson in serious harm. You dont see the implicit threat in touching someone's face and face covering? You say you're a Dr. If someone did that to you,you'd be fine with it, yes?

ohnonotgmail

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's completely unacceptable in the middle of a pandemic. I wouldn't be averse to considering it a form of assault. Why you're defending this is beyond me frankly.

if she put her hand to his face and removed his mask that is definitely assault.

This is it

knucklehead6 wrote: »

And I'm a space astronaut, typing this from the international space station.

See, I can play imaginary career too.

I'm fairness, a quick look at their posting history would suggest they're telling the truth. Unless they were playing the long game, which would be pretty impressive

PhoneMain

knucklehead6 wrote: »

I'll refer you to the thread in AH about people who tell you how honest they are

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058131039

Anyone who starts unprompted waffling on about how honest they are or their career immediately sets alarm bells ringing

I was saying that in the context of the point I was making - that people on here with no medical or psychiatric experience is diagnosing someone they've never met with a condition they know very little about and talking about dealing with them in ways that has very serious consequences. Sure feck it, we will throw electro convulsive therapy at Gemma as well, for the craic like.

knucklehead6

This is it wrote: »

I'm fairness, a quick look at their posting history would suggest they're telling the truth. Unless they were playing the long game, which would be pretty impressive

Damn. Now i'll have to offer an apology! ;)

knucklehead6

PhoneMain wrote: »

I was saying that in the context of the point I was making - that people on here with no medical or psychiatric experience is diagnosing someone they've never met with a condition they know very little about and talking about dealing with them in ways that has very serious consequences. Sure feck it, we will throw electro convulsive therapy at Gemma as well, for the craic like.

OK, so you're a doctor (shakes fist at This is it) but no one has ACTUALLY diagnosed her. We've all just said she's freaking crackers! :pac:

Your post that kicked this off was in response to a question asked about how does it happen.

My response to you was that she was potentially putting that gentleman in harm.

As for do I think she should be locked up? Well yeah, I do. And I've no problem about saying that. But us astronauts up here have no real say in it

TaurenDruid

PhoneMain wrote: »

I was saying that in the context of the point I was making - that people on here with no medical or psychiatric experience is diagnosing someone they've never met with a condition they know very little about and talking about dealing with them in ways that has very serious consequences. Sure feck it, we will throw electro convulsive therapy at Gemma as well, for the craic like.

Yeah, cos that's been suggested on here... bit of a slippery slope argument, there, really.

Absolutely, you're correct, none of us can formally diagnose her.

But when someone is posting videos on the internet claiming that there's something up with the sky, chemtrails are there to control us, council workers cleaning the streets and traffic wardens are agents of fascism, "Muslim curry", and the IRA was really MI5 (to name just a few bat**** pronouncements!) then the only reasonable conclusion is yes, there's something up.

When those pronouncements result in real harm to completely innocent bystanders (and she has absolutely fomented hate against completely innocent bystanders, including children) then you might understand why people want something done! Within the law, obviously.

Sardonicat

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Yeah, cos that's been suggested on here... bit of a slippery slope argument, there, really.

Absolutely, you're correct, none of us can formally diagnose her.

But when someone is posting videos on the internet claiming that there's something up with the sky, chemtrails are there to control us, council workers cleaning the streets and traffic wardens are agents of fascism, "Muslim curry", and the IRA was really MI5 (to name just a few bat**** pronouncements!) then the only reasonable conclusion is yes, there's something up.

When those pronouncements result in real harm to completely innocent bystanders (and she has absolutely fomented hate against completely innocent bystanders, including children) then you might understand why people want something done! Within the law, obviously.

Not to mention the harm this is doing to the woman herself. Really, if a friend or even a patient told you that she noticed most of the net curtains in a particular town displayed hidden symbols and indicated that the residents of that town pose a threat to the general population would you not at least gently suggest that she might want to talk to someone qualified to help her get to the bottom of why she believes that? One or two odd beliefs is one thing. Beliefs that have caused a rift with your family, rendered you unemployable and lead you to publicly incite hatred to others indicate someone who is drowning mentally. How sick does someone have to get before they get help?

PhoneMain

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's completely unacceptable in the middle of a pandemic. I wouldn't be averse to considering it a form of assault. Why you're defending this is beyond me frankly.

I'm not defending her behaviour. I'm stating the reasons why its not appropriate to involuntary detain this person based on the limited actions we have seen of her on social media. I think it's reprehensible what she's doing and the way she carries on e.g. the abuse she gave to that family on the lidl ad or the kids in longford. I disagree with their viewpoint on Covid and am all for public health safety measures (facemasks, hand washing and social distancing). However, I am trying to point out to people who keep saying to "lock her up" is that her behaviour as evidenced by social media doesnt warrant what in actuality is a very serious thing to do. I worked in psych and had numerous lectures in a brief period of time of the powers and, most importantly, limitations of the mental health act. And as I said, rightly so, you dont want someone locked up easily, this happened very easily in this country (and across the world) in the past e.g. mother and child homes, long term psychiatric facilities.

PhoneMain

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

if she put her hand to his face and removed his mask that is definitely assault.

Assault. So we involuntarily detain anyone whos thrown a punch on a night out? Get a grip.

PhoneMain

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Yeah, cos that's been suggested on here... bit of a slippery slope argument, there, really.

Absolutely, you're correct, none of us can formally diagnose her.

But when someone is posting videos on the internet claiming that there's something up with the sky, chemtrails are there to control us, council workers cleaning the streets and traffic wardens are agents of fascism, "Muslim curry", and the IRA was really MI5 (to name just a few bat**** pronouncements!) then the only reasonable conclusion is yes, there's something up.

When those pronouncements result in real harm to completely innocent bystanders (and she has absolutely fomented hate against completely innocent bystanders, including children) then you might understand why people want something done! Within the law, obviously.

We dont know if her family hasnt engaged in all these things.
Someone might think that Diabetes is a scam and that all diabetes medications dont do anything. We cant force them to take medications.

Sardonicat

PhoneMain wrote: »

Assault. So we involuntarily detain anyone whos thrown a punch on a night out? Get a grip.

No one is saying that. Get a grip. But you involuntary admit to hospital someone, who due to detiorating mental health, has behaviours that pose a serious risk of harm to themselves or others. Now please tell me how handling a face mask you've removed from an individual's face doesn't pose a risk to that person. Your fingers all over it and they then put it back on. You are saying that doesn't pose a risk? If someone came up to you and removed your mask you'd be cool with that, would you? If the person doing it did so because they believe COVID is a lie you wouldn't think that behaviour might require some sort of intervention? Just let her off to destroy her life s bit more.

Sardonicat

PhoneMain wrote: »

We dont know if her family hasnt engaged in all these things.
Someone might think that Diabetes is a scam and that all diabetes medications dont do anything. We cant force them to take medications.

If they thought that due to delusional thinking caused by a psychiatric disorder you'd let them die and not treat the psychiatric disorder?

Hotblack Desiato

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

she also has a hoard of minions that follow her around to protest, all without masks, all not social distancing...

She incites hatred and sooner or later that will inevitably lead to violence.

PhoneMain

Sardonicat wrote: »

Not to mention the harm this is doing to the woman herself. Really, if a friend or even a patient told you that she noticed most of the net curtains in a particular town displayed hidden symbols and indicated that the residents of that town pose a threat to the general population would you not at least gently suggest that she might want to talk to someone qualified to help her get to the bottom of why she believes that? One or two odd beliefs is one thing. Beliefs that have caused a rift with your family, rendered you unemployable and lead you to publicly incite hatred to others indicate someone who is drowning mentally. How sick does someone have to get before they get help?

A family feud can cause you to drift from your family, render you unemployable and lead you to public incite hatred against another person.....doesnt warrant locking them up tho.

PhoneMain

Sardonicat wrote: »

If they thought that due to delusional thinking caused by a psychiatric disorder you'd let them die and not treat the psychiatric disorder?

did I say Gemma has a psychiatric disorder? Did you diagnose her? Fair play to you if you did but you're breaking patient confidentiality.

ancapailldorcha

I don't think she's mentally ill. I just think she's a vile human being who thinks only of herself.

Sardonicat

PhoneMain wrote: »

did I say Gemma has a psychiatric disorder? Did you diagnose her? Fair play to you if you did but you're breaking patient confidentiality.

Would you care to answer the question about the diabetic who had weird beliefs about insulin? You are the person who gave it as an example and it only requires a yes or no answer.
Diabetic has a breakdown and develops paranoid beliefs about insulin resulting in them refusing to use it and putting them at grave risk of death. Do you respect their belief and let them die or do you attempt to treat the psychiatric condition that's putting them at risk and administer insulin against their will to save their life?

Sardonicat

PhoneMain wrote: »

A family feud can cause you to drift from your family, render you unemployable and lead you to public incite hatred against another person.....doesnt warrant locking them up tho.

But if it's a mental illness? If someone is showing paranoid and delusional thinking that had caused that to happen, that is what we are talking about here and you know it. You are just shifting the goal posts .

Some people starve themselves to death as a form of protest. Some people starve themselves to death because they have a mental illness. Do we not treat the latter because of the former?

PhoneMain

Sardonicat wrote: »

Would you care to answer the question about the diabetic who had weird beliefs about insulin? You are the person who gave it as an example and it only requires a yes or no answer.
Diabetic has a breakdown and develops paranoid beliefs about insulin resulting in them refusing to use it and putting them at grave risk of death. Do you respect their belief and let them die or do you attempt to treat the psychiatric condition that's putting them at risk and administer insulin against their will to save their life?

You're looking for a simple yes or no answer. Believe me, in the real world, if a situation like this arose, you would have a hell of a lot more than 1 doctor making this decision. You would need full mdt input and a lot of evaluation with the patient. It would need diagnosis from psychiatry which wouldnt be done by general medical doctors/endocrinologists and would need a lot of careful consideration.

I was involved in a situation slightly similiar to this and it still stays with me years later - I will not be discussing further only that it was a horrible situation with a lot of emotions on all sides, including patient family members.

Anyway, I think ye think that I'm a Gemma supporter or being deliberately obstructive. the initial point I was trying to make it that it's ridiculously difficult for me to have someone involuntarily admitted and that it's even harder to keep them in hospital. You may not agree with it and have your own feelings on how she may be treated but there's countless hours of research gone into developing these laws.

PhoneMain

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's completely unacceptable in the middle of a pandemic. I wouldn't be averse to considering it a form of assault. Why you're defending this is beyond me frankly.

If its assault then its a matter for An Garda Siochana.

Penfailed

Sardonicat wrote: »

No one is saying that. Get a grip. But you involuntary admit to hospital someone, who due to detiorating mental health, has behaviours that pose a serious risk of harm to themselves or others. Now please tell me how handling a face mask you've removed from an individual's face doesn't pose a risk to that person. Your fingers all over it and they then put it back on. You are saying that doesn't pose a risk? If someone came up to you and removed your mask you'd be cool with that, would you? If the person doing it did so because they believe COVID is a lie you wouldn't think that behaviour might require some sort of intervention? Just let her off to destroy her life s bit more.

She didn't remove the mask and have her fingers all over it. You should watch the unedited video for the whole story. It puts a slightly different spin on it.

knucklehead6

Penfailed wrote: »

She didn't remove the mask and have her fingers all over it. You should watch the unedited video for the whole story. It puts a slightly different spin on it.

What slightly different spin is there?

Question. Did she bully an elderly man into taking his mask off during a pandemic?

Answer. Yes she did. Simple.

Question. Has she been engaging in social distancing, socially responsible behaviour or mask wearing while in public?

Answer. No she hasn’t.

Question. Was she putting that elderly man in harms way?

Answer. Yes she has.


There’s no spin that makes her come out well here, so stop trying.

Piehead

Muscles Schultz wrote: »

https://twitter.com/vmax_14/status/1265070624105549824?s=21

This lunatic has been quiet of late.

Beholders

Penfailed wrote: »

She didn't remove the mask and have her fingers all over it. You should watch the unedited video for the whole story. It puts a slightly different spin on it.

I watched the video, she did ask in a very threating way, why he was wearing a mask, then we got insight that he might actually need a carer, and she conjorald, the fact she need to take a step back and ask him to sing a song is evidents enough she over stepped that mark in her head.

But firstly she had no right to ask the man why he was wearing a mask, regards of anything.

She has no right to ask butcher why they aren't selling pork,

She has no right to state that unicorns(generally kids love fanasty, i would consider Harry Potter an easier place to actack) are part of the LGBTQ

She has a right to an Oppion, and everyone has that right to their oppions, but not when you violently say things and act in her manor.

Lucy8080

PhoneMain wrote: »

I was saying that in the context of the point I was making - that people on here with no medical or psychiatric experience is diagnosing someone they've never met with a condition they know very little about and talking about dealing with them in ways that has very serious consequences. Sure feck it, we will throw electro convulsive therapy at Gemma as well, for the craic like.

That post you made has a good and valid point.

Yet , as far back as 2016/17 I was reading about the narcissistic tendencies of Trump. I was reading of those tendencies in Accredited journals.

There is a poster here who quoted the play -book (with link) to how such a person would play out the loss of power.

It is almost Prophetic!


Edit: You are over emphasizing your understanding of what constitutes ethics on the personal level versus the national/world level. There is a difference.

It would be my wish that you could explain it back to us.

B.T.W. I have not mentioned any Irish national or international , nor Irish Male/Female name here.

That maybe ethical.

It could be also viewed as un-ethical, by those who would be worried about not calling such (powerful/influential) people out.

I would prefer to work our way down from those who actually have power (A president for the sake of argument) .

From there, we go to those who we may need to have some space or intervention for( because if we fail, they might end up having power too) .

Penfailed

knucklehead6 wrote: »

What slightly different spin is there?

Question. Did she bully an elderly man into taking his mask off during a pandemic?

Answer. Yes she did. Simple.

Question. Has she been engaging in social distancing, socially responsible behaviour or mask wearing while in public?

Answer. No she hasn’t.

Question. Was she putting that elderly man in harms way?

Answer. Yes she has.


There’s no spin that makes her come out well here, so stop trying.

You've just asked a pile of questions that are unrelated to the post l was responding to. The OP said that she removed the mask, had her fingers all over it and then put it back on. That didn't happen.