Scientologists get Darwined

[Deus Ex Machina]

The papers here in Sydney are covering the story in quite some detail:

Sydney Morning Herald

Sydney Morning Herald again

Daily Telegraph

The Australian

The Daily Telegraph points out that a man with the same name as the dead father was a member of the Church's Honour Roll in 2002 but the Church is denying that it is the same man.

It will be interesting to see how Channel 9 (one of the highest rating TV stations) covers the story as James Packer is allegedly a Scientologist.

When the Perkins' tragedy happened - the first thing Scientology did was deny that Jeremy Perkins had ever been a member of the Church of Scientology. They were caught in the lie because Jeremy Perkins had his cookie-cutter church approved "I am a scientologist" web page still up. They then proceeded, of course, to take it down. Cached copies...

 

[Miss Anthrope]

...don't... want... to... agree with Cain... but,

There almost always is. Does the "video games are responsible for murder X," refrain sound familiar? I think Cain, in a belligerent way, is saying that we don't have all the facts, and can't ascribe a direct causal link.

That doesn't mean it WASN'T the case, though. There is enough documented misery surrounding Scientology to oppose them.

Well, Scientology telling Scientologists not to give medicine to a psychotic person is a far cry from a violent video game. A closer analogy are christian scientists choosing prayer over medical care for their children.

 

[Oliver]

Well, Scientology telling Scientologists not to give medicine to a psychotic person is a far cry from a violent video game. A closer analogy are christian scientists choosing prayer over medical care for their children.

Or choosing Creationism over Education.
By the Way: What's Scientology's SciFi stance about "the beginning"?

 

[Jimbo07]

Well, Scientology telling Scientologists not to give medicine to a psychotic person is a far cry from a violent video game. A closer analogy are christian scientists choosing prayer over medical care for their children.

I'm not sure. Are we talking about over-simplification here?

 

[Cain]

The Scientolgists are gonna get your mama.

Well, Scientology telling Scientologists not to give medicine to a psychotic person is a far cry from a violent video game. A closer analogy are christian scientists choosing prayer over medical care for their children.

That's not what he's saying. The problem is people are quick to blame something (such as video games) before all the facts are in. You're sort of glossing over this crucial caveat:

That doesn't mean it WASN'T the case, though. There is enough documented misery surrounding Scientology to oppose them.

 

[Lonewulf]

...don't... want... to... agree with Cain... but,

Agree with him or don't. It's the argument, not the person that matters.

There almost always is. Does the "video games are responsible for murder X," refrain sound familiar?

Not analogous, I'm afraid.

Videogames don't have a church doctrine, auditing, or an "Ethics Commission" or whatever else to keep you in line. Videogames are also entirely meant for entertainment.

At no point in time do videogames make any declaration on reality, or give any sort of medical diagnosis.

If they do, then they're definitely exceptions (and certainly no game I've heard of).

I think Cain, in a belligerent way...

Very belligerant. But Cain has a tendency to think that anyone that he disagrees with is a moron. But it's okay; I can't really feel insulted by someone like him.

...is saying that we don't have all the facts, and can't ascribe a direct causal link.

So the parents, part of a religion that is tiered, structured, and cult-like, that entirely sets itself against psychiatry and psychiatric medicine...

Decide to, completely on their own...

Not give their daughter, a psychotic that they obviously care deeply about...

No psychiatric drugs...

And saying that there is most likely a link is jumping to conclusions the same as blaming videogames on a school shooting?

Specious, to say the least.

That doesn't mean it WASN'T the case, though.

I'd have to be convinced that it wasn't. Members of scientology, didn't give child psychiatric medication, seems clear-cut to me.

There is enough documented misery surrounding Scientology to oppose them.

Of course there is. And I have no reason to think that this isn't an example of one.

 

[Lonewulf]

Double post

 

[Jimbo07]

I'd have to be convinced that it wasn't. Members of scientology, didn't give child psychiatric medication, seems clear-cut to me.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald:

"They denied her the treatment she wanted, then dosed the 25-year-old with their own medicine, specially imported from the US. Finally, as her mental health worsened three weeks ago, they crumbled and let her take anti-psychotic drugs she had been prescribed."

So was, or was not, the girl on her meds at the time? Why or why not? Scientology is "cited," in the case. Hmmm. I don't like Scientology, but is it another of the articles where it is concluded that Scientology Causes Stabbings?

That's all. It's a little contrarian, yeah, but we should maintain skeptical skills, especially on some of these hotbead issues.

 

[Lonewulf]

According to the Sydney Morning Herald:

"They denied her the treatment she wanted, then dosed the 25-year-old with their own medicine, specially imported from the US. Finally, as her mental health worsened three weeks ago, they crumbled and let her take anti-psychotic drugs she had been prescribed."

If true, it is interesting. Regardless, why did it take so long for them to "crumble"?

So was, or was not, the girl on her meds at the time? Why or why not?

Well, now that I read the quote, I admit that it is a key question.

Scientology is "cited," in the case. Hmmm. I don't like Scientology, but is it another of the articles where it is concluded that Scientology Causes Stabbings?

That's all. It's a little contrarian, yeah, but we should maintain skeptical skills, especially on some of these hotbead issues.

There's a difference between "contrarian" (what Cain usually is), and "willing to provide meaningful evidence for doubt".

However...

From the Daily Telegraph:

The girl's parents refused her psychiatric treatment because of their Scientology beliefs, the court heard.

Then later on:

The Church last night released a statement claiming "the accused has never been a member of the Church of Scientology and at no time have we had any contact concerning the accused, her illness or her treatment from her family."

"The Church does not provide medical advice to its parishioners and directs all people to qualified medical doctors for appropriate assistance," the statement said.

That's all it says about the family being in the Church, and I have reason to doubt the Church.

I'd also add that the bit about "not providing medical advice to its parishioners", based on all of my research, is patently false.

From The Australian:

A psychiatric report tendered to the court yesterday said the woman was diagnosed with a psychotic illness after being admitted to hospital last year but her parents had refused her appropriate follow-up treatment.

"She had a history of being diagnosed with a psychotic illness in late 2006 at Bankstown Hospital, but follow-up from the mental health team was apparently declined by her parents because of their alleged Scientology beliefs," senior psychiatrist Mark Cross told the court.

The Church of Scientology teaches that psychiatry and psychology are destructive and abusive practices.

Later on:

"She stated that her parents did not want her to take the prescribed medication she had been on in 2006, and apparently started her on medication they got from America - which was not psychiatric in nature," the psychiatric report said.

Dr Cross said that three weeks prior to the alleged murders, the woman's feelings of ill health started to worsen and her parents allowed her to restart her anti-psychotic medication because it helped her sleep.

The person involved got the prescribed medication MUCH later... but too late. The reasons for not having the medication until too late are all too obvious to me.

However, I will retract any previous statements about the woman not having psychiatric medication. It seems that she did receive the medication, albeit far too late to help her.

 

[Liquid_Grace]

According to the Sydney Morning Herald:

"They denied her the treatment she wanted, then dosed the 25-year-old with their own medicine, specially imported from the US. Finally, as her mental health worsened three weeks ago, they crumbled and let her take anti-psychotic drugs she had been prescribed."

So was, or was not, the girl on her meds at the time? Why or why not? Scientology is "cited," in the case. Hmmm. I don't like Scientology, but is it another of the articles where it is concluded that Scientology Causes Stabbings?

That's all. It's a little contrarian, yeah, but we should maintain skeptical skills, especially on some of these hotbead issues.

My understanding from some of the articles above (including the radio interview posted by my lovely husband, TGHO) that six months ago, the girl asked for help, and her parents stopped her getting help based on Scieno beliefs. Three weeks ago, she became very ill and did start taking medicine, though, obviously, it is now too late.

I'm holding on to my skeptical skills with both hands and a winch here, because Scientology pushs all my angry buttons, as the parent of a mildly autistic child.

Cheers,
Grace

 

[Jimbo07]

I'm holding on to my skeptical skills with both hands and a winch here, because Scientology pushs all my angry buttons, as the parent of a mildly austistic child.

Good deal! Just don't assume that there's a simple answer in any tragedy, including this one...

 

[Dorian Gray]

...don't... want... to... agree with Cain... but,

There almost always is. Does the "video games are responsible for murder X," refrain sound familiar? I think Cain, in a belligerent way, is saying that we don't have all the facts, and can't ascribe a direct causal link.

That doesn't mean it WASN'T the case, though. There is enough documented misery surrounding Scientology to oppose them.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.... you can put down a video game and walk away any time you like with absolutely no repercussions whatsoever, and even start badmouthing the game with impunity. Try that with Scientology. Then come tell me they are the same thing.

 

[Cain]

There's a difference between "contrarian" (what Cain usually is), and "willing to provide meaningful evidence for doubt".

I suggest you pick a logic textbook. I am not exculpating Scientology, but merely saying not enough evidence is in to blame it as wholly responsible. You see how that works? How you're the one who has to provide sufficient evidence?

Let's be honest: you're not a remarkably discerning person. Mentioning the "schweetness" of the Scientology headquarters, I thought, gave the game away, but you took it as some serious argument. You also thought my mention of the innocuous Beck was some appeal to authority. You made a mistake because it conformed to your pre-existing view of me (which is incorrect, by the way). Understandably, I was earlier also called a "moron" when I said, "I bet Australians are feeling really stupid about their gun control laws right about now." In fact, I'm a fan of Australian gun control laws, though he may have had virtually no way of knowing (no context). Fabricating the most absurd parody and being taken seriously is, I confess, a reliable source of personal amusement.

So what if you have wait a few days before laying the blame on Scientology? As Hume remarked, "The wise man proportions his belief to the evidence."

 

[The Great Hairy One]

Understandably, I was earlier also called a "moron" when I said, "I bet Australians are feeling really stupid about their gun control laws right about now." In fact, I'm a fan of Australian gun control laws, though he may have had virtually no way of knowing (no context). Fabricating the most absurd parody and being taken seriously is, I confess, a reliable source of personal amusement.

Huh, well my face is red!

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[gumboot]

To be fair...

A) Unless it can be proved that 3 weeks is insufficient time for the proper medication to take effect

and

B) Unless it can be proved that people in her condition, on appropriate medication for over 3 weeks are not capable of still having psychotic episodes and killing people

There's really no grounds for immediately blaming the Scientology nutjob parents for their deaths.

-Gumboot

 

[Oliver]

There's really no grounds for immediately blaming the Scientology nutjob parents for their deaths.

-Gumboot

No one did blame the "Scientology nutjob" Parents in here. We're all blaming Scientology.

 

[LostAngeles]

To be fair...

A) Unless it can be proved that 3 weeks is insufficient time for the proper medication to take effect

and

B) Unless it can be proved that people in her condition, on appropriate medication for over 3 weeks are not capable of still having psychotic episodes and killing people

There's really no grounds for immediately blaming the Scientology nutjob parents for their deaths.

-Gumboot

I know that it was the case with the SSRIs I was put on 10 years ago that I wouldn't see a result for about 2-3 weeks (I mean, aside from the hallucinations). My sister would also spend about the same amount of time being incredibly moody and antagonistic when her dose was adjusted and it takes about that long when they adjust the dosage of the older, very low-dose, antidepressant I'm taking for my migraines to stop giving me nightmares.

All of which is anecdotal and none of which may actually apply when it comes to anti-psychotics.

Still I would also have to ask if she: a) was taking them, b) taking them every day, and c) taking them at a regular time everyday. There's also resistances, side effects, etc. etc.

But no, we don't have the whole story yet...

 

[The Great Hairy One]

There's really no grounds for immediately blaming the Scientology nutjob parents for their deaths.

We're blaming Scientology as a whole. Not just the parents.

Read those articles published in the SMH again. The parents refused her access to psychotropic drugs due to their religious beliefs. They are responsible for what happened.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[Lonewulf]

We're blaming Scientology as a whole. Not just the parents.

Read those articles published in the SMH again. The parents refused her access to psychotropic drugs due to their religious beliefs. They are responsible for what happened.

Cheers,
TGHO

Oh, I'm sure they refused for entirely non-scientology related reasons. I mean, they probably thought that the medicine was poisoned by bad magic pixie dust or something.

 

[Herzblut]

The person involved got the prescribed medication MUCH later... but too late. The reasons for not having the medication until too late are all too obvious to me.

However, I will retract any previous statements about the woman not having psychiatric medication. It seems that she did receive the medication, albeit far too late to help her.

I still dont understand if the patient received proper treatment including mental health team surveillance.

She obviously suffered from severe and acute Schizophrenia and the antipsychotic neuroleptics given in this case have nothing to do with letting her "sleep". This is blatantly rediculous. Antipsychotic medication is among the strongest imaginable with possibly massive, if not fatal side-effects.

Most medications take around 7–14 days to have an antipsychotic effect but indirect symptomatic relief may occur immediately as insomnia and agitation are addressed by nonspecific sedative effects or adjunctive benzodiazepine prescription.

Did she take Benzodiazepines as well, like Valium or Rohybnol, to "sleep"?

An explosive mixture which requires medical attendance.

I am curious to know some more details.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia

Herzblut