PDA

View Full Version : Tina Fey? Alaska Supreme Court Ruling, Liberty!




Change
09-29-2008, 05:55 PM
What State has Tina Fey Governed, just checking? I like Sara Palin, she has possibilities.

Alaska Supreme Court Strikes Down Forced Psychiatric Drugging Procedures

In a resounding affirmation of personal liberty and freedom, the Alaska Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Myers v. Alaska Psychiatric Institute today. The court found Alaska's forced psychiatric drugging regime to be unconstitutional when the state forces someone to take psychiatric medications without proving it to be in their best interests or when there are less restrictive alternatives.

Faith Myers, the appellant in the case, reacted to the decision saying, "It makes all of my suffering worthwhile."

Myers' attorney, Jim Gottstein, said "By requiring the least intrusive alternative to forced psychiatric drugging, this decision has the potential to change the face of current psychiatric practice, dramatically improving the lives of people who now find themselves at the wrong end of a hypodermic needle.“ While he acknowledged that some people find psychiatric drugs helpful, Gottstein said he pursued this case because, in addition to the drugs' serious physical health risks, he is concerned about the rights of those who find them both unhelpful and intolerable. He continued, “For people who want to try non-drug approaches, the research is very clear that many will have much better long-term outcomes, including complete recovery after being diagnosed with serious mental illness. This decision restores the rights of those people to pursue that potential."

The Alaska Supreme Court decision noted the trial court's concern that the statute did not allow the court to consider the problems with the drugs even though "a valid debate exists in the medically/psychiatric community as to the safety and effectiveness of the proposed treatment plan." With this decision, trial courts are now required to consider the safety and effectiveness of the drugs in deciding whether the proposed psychiatric drugging is in the patient's best interest.

The Court's Decision also makes specific mention that Alaska Statutes require the hospital to honor a patient's previously expressed desires regarding psychiatric medications.

Sandra
09-29-2008, 05:58 PM
What State has Tina Fey Governed, just checking? I like Sara Palin, she has possibilities.

Alaska Supreme Court Strikes Down Forced Psychiatric Drugging Procedures

In a resounding affirmation of personal liberty and freedom, the Alaska Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Myers v. Alaska Psychiatric Institute today. The court found Alaska's forced psychiatric drugging regime to be unconstitutional when the state forces someone to take psychiatric medications without proving it to be in their best interests or when there are less restrictive alternatives.

Faith Myers, the appellant in the case, reacted to the decision saying, "It makes all of my suffering worthwhile."

Myers' attorney, Jim Gottstein, said "By requiring the least intrusive alternative to forced psychiatric drugging, this decision has the potential to change the face of current psychiatric practice, dramatically improving the lives of people who now find themselves at the wrong end of a hypodermic needle.“ While he acknowledged that some people find psychiatric drugs helpful, Gottstein said he pursued this case because, in addition to the drugs' serious physical health risks, he is concerned about the rights of those who find them both unhelpful and intolerable. He continued, “For people who want to try non-drug approaches, the research is very clear that many will have much better long-term outcomes, including complete recovery after being diagnosed with serious mental illness. This decision restores the rights of those people to pursue that potential."

The Alaska Supreme Court decision noted the trial court's concern that the statute did not allow the court to consider the problems with the drugs even though "a valid debate exists in the medically/psychiatric community as to the safety and effectiveness of the proposed treatment plan." With this decision, trial courts are now required to consider the safety and effectiveness of the drugs in deciding whether the proposed psychiatric drugging is in the patient's best interest.

The Court's Decision also makes specific mention that Alaska Statutes require the hospital to honor a patient's previously expressed desires regarding psychiatric medications.


I think this happened because Palin IS NOT in Alaska now.

Change
09-29-2008, 08:55 PM
No actually this happen when Palin was in Alaska.

Conza88
09-29-2008, 08:59 PM
Doesn't matter if she was there on not.

She is teh scumzor. Need we go down this path again? go sip the palin kool aid elsewhere thanks.

Change
09-30-2008, 06:34 AM
Relax, pointing out a Supreme Court ruling that happened in her State while she was Governor is not drinking the Kool Aid, give me a break. That Tina Fey NBC seek and destroy mission on Sarah Palin should be called exactly what it is propaganda regardless of who you are voting for. If the same measuring stick was used to measure the once anti war candidate Obama, I would be less likely to speak out. However, remembering what the media did to Ron Paul, it moves me to stand up. In addition, I respect the fact that she actually has accomplished a governorship. One must see through propaganda regardless of who it is targeting.

tonesforjonesbones
09-30-2008, 07:26 AM
Sandra, that is BALONEY...PALIN is a very libertarian leaning person. Why dont you stop listening to the left wing loon spin? Think for yourself. tones

Change
09-30-2008, 08:43 AM
I just can't stand the media, even today they are talking about her lack of foreign policy experience, yet Obama oh my God, not an ounce. The entire War is impacting our economy. Katie Couric, her questions were stupid. The best question was about pre emptive war, which actually Charlie Gibson asked, there is where she had trouble actually confronting the issue head on. Her answer should have been No I do not agree with pre emptive wars, I believe in Just Wars., but the important thing to do at this point is decide how to get our men and women home and end an unpopular war and a very expensive war. America has accomplished it's mission of original intent even though it was not clearly defined, again pointing out Ron Paul's agrument of actually declaring WAR with a beginning, middle, and end mission. Neither party stood tall to at least do the basics of what the constitution required.

Not one hard question like that was position towards Obama on foreign policy. What does Obama think of Pre emptive wars? For a Guy who claims to be so smart what else does he have to offer on getting our troops home? If he was against the initial war and that was truly his position, why then continued the war? He does plan to continue it and actually expand it to other countries.

Obviously, we have little possibilities for our next President to be the one we want it to be, but to sit and watch a guy act as if he is against the war, all along pressing forward to expand it and has no foreign policy experience himself is really sickening. In addition, I find it amazing the democrats don't hold Obama to account in ending the war as he said he would.

It comes down to guns and butter, just as Ron Paul said it would. So going forward in the next debates for all candidates, a simple question should be how do you plan to continue to pay for the two front war America is in.