Mens rea and mental health

Mens rea is a legal concept about culpability and stuff. I'm not a lawyer but I can read a Wiki page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea#England

Here's another page
http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Mens-rea-intention.php

It seems doctors can avoid this legal concept.

They killed 1,800 old people unnecessarily every year when they used major tranquillisers on old people. There is significant vidence about the risks of these drugs before this mass slaughter happened. Even after the mass slaughter happened they continued to use these drugs on the elderly. And yet there has been no punishment.

These drugs are used on schizophrenics for life and it is cheaper than bothering with non-drug treatments which are safer. Many have died as a result of these drugs. Many have had their life expectancy reduced. There are other options but these are not investigated. The drugs are treating behaviour, not any real physical component of a biological disease, and they cause real disease. There is significant evidence to support this idea and there is significant evidence to challenge the biomedical model of mental illness. And yet the psychiatrists get away with it. There is no punishment.

There is the case of the suicide of David Reimer, a child experimented on by an immoral doctor, Dr Money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

Dr Money was not punished through criminal law and mens rea, i.e. the understanding that such tortures wrought upon a person by a doctor are illegal and f they lead to death they should be treated as murder because the doctor knows the risks.

There's what happened to H M.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HM_(patient)

This may be harder to apply mens rea to. The result was not a physical death of the patient but it was a mental death. Rather than hang their heads in shame and help this individual have the best quality of life, mental health researchers used this poor human being for the rest of his life.

Doctors who performed lobotomies without knowing or considering the damage were reckless. They sought answers to behaviour using neurological means. They killed a few people. There was no punishment.

Rosemary Kennedy's story is a prime example. She was a risk to the good name of the Kennedy presidential family because of her behaviour so they used a lobotomy on her. She was probably promiscuous and flighty and fun loving in a time when this was considered a behaviour different to the norm. The operation damaged her for life but there was no punishment for the person who committed this malfeasance.
http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n02/historia/important.htm

Doctors who performed ECT - a clearly dangerous treatment which causes seizures to change behaviour and emotion - and killed patients also got away with it.

I wonder if any patients have died because of a failed paradoxical intervention where a suicidal patient is goaded by a practitioner into suicide? Mens rea and culpability under British law - to my lay perspective - would mean the mental health practioner responsible for goading a person into suicide is guilty of murder. But they'd get away with it.

It is perhaps because doctors are assumed to be treating real illnesses. Though there is no truly scientific proof and though every decade seems to see the lie of the biomedical model disproven evermore there seems no punishment for the crimes to individuals and humanity.

So many deaths and years of lost life expectancy because it is doctors doing it. They're murdering and slaughtering people when they know the risks and they know they're not treating real illnesses. The risks of treatment of real illnesses is how they get away with it in phuyscal healthcare.

The example of the dementia patients on major tranquillisers is the example which makes the difference. The drugs did not heal the illness. The drugs did not arrest the degeneration of the brain. The drugs did not heal the brain. The drugs were used for social convenience and not treatment of a real illness.

1,800 old people a year died unnecessarily. There was no punishment for this crime. Doctors continued to use the drug on old people even after this mass manslaughter happened. Not one was punished but, according to my lay understanding of mens rea, they should have been because they were not treating the illness.

I'm not a lawyer so I probably don't understand. I don't understand why they were not punished. After all, isn't that the point of law and the theory of crime and punishment? Punishment is there to prevent further crimes. Without punishment psychiatrists and other mental health professionals will keep on killing patients because of their behaviour and emotions.

Occassionally a doctor gets struck off for doing something unethical. For example my old psychiatrist Theodore Southzos. All he did was connect too much with his female patients. No one died. But they struck him off.

1,800 old people were killed. Many others have been killed by drugs or ECT. Yet there's no punishment for them. They broken the "first, do no harm" bit of their fundamental oath yet they continue to 'treat' behaviour and emotion and kill their patients.

No one gives a shit about another dead schizophrenic. That's why.