Florida Supreme Court | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
I heard of where one of the top leaders of the Network is
privately telling people that the ‘problem with Andrew’ is
that I’m “negative.” [?]
What I’m advocating, what I’ve
been advocating in fact for the last 30+ years, is that
‘trauma of treatment’ is the
focal issue of the ‘madness
revolution’ of our times. “Negative?”
— I don’t think so,
not unless you are a provider who wants to keep controlling
people by doing the ‘same-old, same-old’. But it is also
obviously inconvenient to those who wish to turn their
backs on the issue of trauma and concentrate on today’s
dual focus on confrontation/bureaucratic accommodation.
I understand why the clients movement originally got
imbalanced in favor of ‘patients rights’ issues, in favor of
cutting a deal with the system on ‘empowerment’. But it is
no longer sufficient to fight for these
things, even if they are commonly honored in the breach.
It is also necessary to raise the issue
of ‘trauma of treatment’ and
demand that the system start negotiating with us around
that. I want the clients movement to do this, and I spend
my efforts doing the work that will move things that way ..
is that negative?
The present ‘recovery’ agenda of the ‘partnership’
group that dominates state mental health politics
is framed in a way that
adjusts the way ‘treatment’ is administered. For it is
important to undo this ‘warehousing of (so-called)
low-functioning clients’ scene, and ‘recovery’
purports to work on that problem.
Still it ducks the matter of ‘trauma of
treatment’ like it’s the shame of the
system and it’s beyond the
scope of system change. At present, everything that so much as
stirs up the thought of ‘trauma of treatment’ is labelled
‘controversial’ by the ‘partnership’
and mercilessly attacked.
‘Controversial’, excuse me, ‘negative’:
What that whispering
really concerns is the conviction that it is ‘good judgment’
to collaborate with the hate campaign which this mean-spirited
label represents. I have legal advice that the behavior of the
‘partnership’ falls within the
definition of ‘hate crime’ under
California law. But I also have the profound conviction that no
good will come of reducing client politics to litigation, and so
I am involved in a statewide effort to construct a positive
solution to this hate-laced politics and trauma-ridden system.
I think the author of this ‘negativity’ slur should reconsider
and try to find a wholesome way to approach this affair.
Respectfully Andrew Phelps | ||||||||||
 |