Posts by mark taslov
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Lost Men, in reply to Walter Nicholls,
I'm sorry Walter I missed the inference there.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to linger,
a random member
Though I assume the answers would likely be the same – this wasn’t my emphasis. I was thinking more along the lines of the road code – how in the case of a crash which involved injury or even without injury in some cases – reporting the incident to the police is mandatory or face a $5000 fine.
Whereas what we see here in the alleged instance of a potential harm is that people are entitled to contact "whoever they wish in lieu of the emergency services" – i.e not contact emergency services at all.
I used ‘member of the public’ as opposed to ‘Member of Parliament’ to speculate on how this type of situation might pan out in the private sector, not a random member of the public but a colleague of the patient.
i.e. if two people are working for e.g. a corporation whose leadership had just that week gone against medical advice in publicly naming the patient as a whistleblower, which led to the whistleblower then formally bringing allegations of a criminal nature to police, which the police are currently investigating, which led to further attempts by the corporation to attempt to publicly smear the whistle blower, which led to further escalation in the patient/whistleblower’s mental health state, which culminated in the patient sending a message "of concern" to the colleague:
is the colleague fully indemnified in ignoring what might be widely considered reasonably held concerns as to the corporation’s “interest” in the patient’s wellbeing and the seriousness of the police investigation and completely within their rights in not bothering to inform authorities but instead notifying a member of their corporation, despite knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that the corporation is not – to put it euphemistically – working in the patient’s best interests?
if serious injury or loss of life had ensued – how liable is a colleague if it were proven that this loss of life etc might have been avoided had they made contact with the authorities directly rather than placing that information in the hands of the corporation to use as nefariously as was adjudged commercially necessary under the circumstances?
TLDR: if someone threatens suicide, are members of the public in any way obligated to contact authorities directly (and to ensure authorities are contacted) or is the law just kind of cool if we leave it to a mate to sort out and take their word that that’s what they did?
-
Hard News: Lost Men, in reply to Neil,
Imagine my surprise reading down the thread on these otherwise safe boards only to encounter first one blatantly transphobic dogwhistle: "One current argument for treating men who have transitioned to women as women is that “ unmoderated, transphobia unchallenged, and then look there’s another “ a biologically female person receiving testosterone”. Must be 2018.
Perhaps if the Labour led Government stopped ignoring UN recommendations and proactively increased awareness in these areas of sex and gender then we mightent end up with these ignorance led and potentially harmful conversations. It's unusual in that in some areas of discussion this site is highly progressive.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Neil,
We do know however that Ross came to no harm
Thank you Neil, though I’d generally favour leaving an assessment of harm to qualified medical health professionals on hand and/or the patient themselves.
The reason I asked is that we’ve heard *a lot* about respecting Jami-Lee Ross’s privacy over the last week so I’m trying to establish whether a patient actually has any right of privacy at all in these types of circumstances or whether the protections are so toothless that a member of the public - on encountering an individual so distressed that further action is required - might be fully entitled to contact whoever they wish in lieu of the emergency services suggested above, which may include informing a political party, regardless of whether there might be a clearly established conflict of interest in terms of them receiving this type of sensitive information. Would it be correct to surmise that no such protections exist?
-
Neil sorry there appears to be some glitch in the site today, to be clear this was the question:
Then, apparently, she rings someone in the National Party who in turn rings Ross’ psychiatrist
Noting that elements of your version correspond closely with testimony from all sources to date – in your position as a mental health expert – with regard to Fisher’s depiction of “The urgency of the situation”, would there be any scenario where it might be recommended procedure to initially contact work colleagues when presented with immediate threats to a patient’s wellbeing or is contacting mental health services/police directly always the best course of action?
I note that health.govt.nz (pdf) states:
If they need urgent help
If someone has attempted suicide or you’re worried about their immediate safety, do the following.
• Call your local mental health crisis assessment team or go with them to the emergency department (ED) at your nearest hospital.
• If they are an immediate physical danger to themselves or others, call 111.
• Remain with them and help them to stay safe until support arrives.
• Try to stay calm and let them know you care.
• Keep them talking: listen and ask questions without judging.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Neil,
I’m not sure if my posts are showing up, but as ‘sectioned’ has only appeared in quotation marks in every news headline in which it’s featured that prospect had remained moot. That National could have *used* the police rather than the act itself was more my interpretation of linger’s point given how routine these types of callouts are.
Police officers attended almost 35,000 mental health callouts this past year; 14,491 mental health incidents and 19,672 attempted or threatened suicides. That’s about 94 jobs every day,
So given your knowledge of acute mental health services is there any precedent/official advice with regard to my question above?
ETA Dennis Frank and Sacha’s posts only just showed up for me 4 minutes into editing this (which I assume may also be why Paul linked to the same story) so there may be some tech issues worth looking into.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Neil,
Then, apparently, she rings someone in the National Party who in turn rings Ross’ psychiatrist
Noting that elements of your version correspond closely with testimony from all sources to date – in your position as a mental health expert – with regard to Fisher’s depiction of "The urgency of the situation", would there be any scenario where it might be recommended procedure to initially contact work colleagues when presented with immediate threats to a patient’s wellbeing or is contacting mental health services/police directly always the best course of action?
I note that health.govt.nz (pdf) states:
If they need urgent help
If someone has attempted suicide or you’re worried about their immediate safety, do the following.
Call your local mental health crisis assessment team or go with them to the emergency department (ED) at your nearest hospital.
If they are an immediate physical danger to themselves or others, call 111.
Remain with them and help them to stay safe until support arrives.
Try to stay calm and let them know you care.
Keep them talking: listen and ask questions without judging. -
More reformed Dirty Politics conduit David Fisher authors competing albeit remodelled version of Whale Oil’s story – “discovered” – “from a range of sources” – no names - more or less completely exonerates the National Party of any wrongdoing – hatchet job on Dirty Politics insider Slater.
In the same edition as somewhat less reformed Dirty Politics conduit Matthew Hooton authors hatchet job on Ross masquerading as opinion piece about career politicians and reviving civic engagement.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Neil,
Meanwhile he releases private information to undermine the women he abused.
while that may have been the intent of both Jami-Lee Ross and the ’supporter of the Botany MP with his permission’, the wider outcome is arguably that in the public eye its greatest impact would have been neutralising extant question marks hanging over the National Party:
Even if Ross is banished, those people are still working to protect their own. Many in the National Party knew about Ross’ abuse, but didn’t do anything about it, because mistreating women is generally something to be ignored or suppressed unless your institution is going to end up looking bad.
Displacing burgeoning calls for deeper interrogation of the culture of toxic masculinity in Parliament:
If people can guess, ima little p*ssed at dominant privileged voices skipping over the racism and the sexual abuse at play in my workplace, long a problem but only recently spotlighted, as if it ain’t part of the ‘game’. This is real peoples lives we’re not talking about. FFS.
By painting the issue as being to some degree reciprocal:
The text – released on the same day that the National Party said it would review its culture – includes a slew of abuse and personal insults about Mr Ross’ appearance and personality.
My impression of that news item – and I’m happy to be corrected – was that it was unprecedented – both in terms of the SOB running the story as a matter of ’public interest’ and the selectivity of the censorship.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Dennis Frank,
So I’d be interested to hear your take on this dichotomy. As a whistleblower, being taken by state agents into a situation of total control (without his cellphone according to friends and we still haven’t been informed if the state confiscated that) you’d feel your agency had been totally eliminated, eh?
I was just talking to my psychologist about the physical and mental anxiety I’d experienced over the weekend due to the nature of the reporting of the incident. Noting that I lived in the PRC for about 1/3 of my life where such disappearings are commonplace and that my understanding of ’agency’ diverges from the norm I may not be best placed to canvas that. Suffice to say I’m side-eyeing anyone raising their hand for the “nothing to see here” brigade.