From this excellent blog.
http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2010/07/23/deprivation-of-liberty-best-interests-test-compatible-with-human-rights-law/
"
Article 5 provides
1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one
shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in
accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
(e) the lawful detention of persons … of unsound mind…
"
The law means psychiatric patients are treated as criminals.
ECHR case of Aerts v. Belgium, application number 25357/94, 30/07/1998
"The first complaint of the applicant:
The applicant complains to the European Court of Human Rights that he had been detained in breach of Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention on account of his continued detention in the psychiatric wing of a prison, pending his transfer to the Social Protection Centre X, which had been designated as his place of detention by the Mental Health Board's decision of 22 March 1998.
In considering the first complaint of the applicant, the court found a violation of Article 5 § 1 and gave the following grounds (see paragraphs 42 – 50 of Aerts v. Belgium):
Any deprivation of liberty must be done “in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law” and be “lawful.” As such it:
must conform to the substantive and procedural rules of the national law
should be in keeping with the aim of Article 5, namely to protect the individual from arbitrariness
Moreover
there must be a relationship between the ground of permitted deprivation of liberty relied on and the place and conditions of detention.
The Commission found a breach (and the court agreed) of the national law which had foreseen the detention of a mentally ill person in prison as a provisional measure only, pending designation of the institution where the person was to be detained (the applicant spent seven months in the psychiatric wing of the prison waiting for the transfer to his proper place of detention after its designation).
The detention of a person of unsound mind should be “lawful” in the meaning of Article 5 § 1e, if it takes place in a hospital, clinic or other appropriate institution. Thus the psychiatric wing of the prison is an inappropriate place for the applicant (as there was neither regular medical attention nor therapeutic environment).
"Five in court over 'EU's most serious fake medicine scam' - Crime, UK -
The Independent
<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/five-in-court-over-eus-most-serious-fake-medicine-scam-2152769.html>
Really the biggest scam is the SSRI. Here's an excellent article
detailing the problems.
http://www.alternet.org/health/149084/are_antidepressants_a_scam_5_myths_about_how_to_treat_depression_/?page=entire
It's the second video further down the page which is interesting. It's
where a project that started 10-15 years ago has got in making powered
armour for soliders. If I remember right from reading about this project
when it started it'll be another 10-15 years before these suits become
something used on the battlefield.
These suits are the stuff of science fiction but they're become real
just like many ideas from people's imaginations. The powered soldier
will be a huge force multiplier. Think of the soldiers' suits in Avatar.
These also have civilian applications as the article suggests. The
technology can help people who couldn't walk. With bioelectircal
feedback systems wheelchairs will be replaced by walking chairs. A
significant part of the disability ceases to exist.
This is all part of a movement towards transhumanism too. This movement
has a basis in a lot of theoretical thought. It's about constructing a
society where a person can choose to be augmented or not but both be
equal. People are equal regardless of their ability or disability.
People are equal because that's how they're born and that's how we die.
Society is made colourful and wonderful and diverse by a mix not by our
similarities. We're not robots, even if 2010 societal norm expect us to be.
The example I might give to explain what I'm trying to explain, perhaps
poorly, is two blind parents wanting a blind child. We have the
technology now to screen embryos such that there's little chance that
people will be born blind ever again. It's true for a lot of
disabilities. But this idea of disability is something that's foisted on
minorities by the consensus tribe, i.e. the 'normals' (or automotons in
my preferred language).
Blind people value their blindness and their diversity. They're part of
the human race. Their experiences are vital to our collective
consciousness. To me blindness is as normal as sight but I use the word
normal in this case to mean acceptable or part of the human race. A
disability exists but this is a problem with society and civilisation.
This idea of social disability applies to all disabilities but is
perhaps most significant in mental health.
So the ideals of transhumanism are inline with the purist ideals of the
social model of disability. People will have a right to chose to be
technologically enhanced or remain human, however 'disabled' that may
be, because first and foremost humans are what we are. Mad, blind or
whatever.
One of them, a senior barrister, made an important point. I'd been
looking at totally new avenues where the Articulated Naturality Web can
affect human life. He made an important point. Make things better that
already exist.
So a simple one would be the navigation application. Adding 3D objects
guiding a person to their destination makes navigation better. Finding a
late night bar nearby that still serves is an essential application and
an AN interface will make it easier for drunks to stumble to their
destination with large arrows appearing in their phone view of the real
world.
So really there's two directions for new AN applications: making things
that exist better and making things exist that only exist in the mind's
of sci-fi authors.
