PDA

View Full Version : Petition to Prosecute the CofS for Practicing Medicine without a License



uniquemand
24th November 2008, 03:02 PM
This is overdue. Whatever efforts have been taken in the past have failed, on this score. I suggest we create a petition, somewhere, circulate it as far and wide as possible, and then try to get the Attorney General to prosecute these people for encouraging people not to take their psychiatric medication. The mental health counseling that they offer as "pastoral counseling" is another area that should be probed again, as I think it is a threat, particularly the stuff beyond clear (although abreaction/NED has it's dangers, too, and any counseling runs the risk of transference, about which auditors are completely ignorant).

I will look into it myself, but I think the effort would be better if someone with legal experience were consulted to make sure that the suggested investigation was something that was really possible and had a leg to stand on.

degraded being
24th November 2008, 10:10 PM
^^^^^^^^^
This.

klidov
24th November 2008, 10:15 PM
^^^^^^^^^
This.


^^^agreed^^^^

Operating Wog
24th November 2008, 10:37 PM
I think they are pretty careful about that stuff ever since the emeter raids. I don't know how many things I signed over the years saying I wasn't receiving medical treatment, just spiritual counselling. worth a shot but I doubt it would go anywhere.

feline
24th November 2008, 10:43 PM
This is overdue. Whatever efforts have been taken in the past have failed, on this score. I suggest we create a petition, somewhere, circulate it as far and wide as possible, and then try to get the Attorney General to prosecute these people for encouraging people not to take their psychiatric medication. The mental health counseling that they offer as "pastoral counseling" is another area that should be probed again, as I think it is a threat, particularly the stuff beyond clear (although abreaction/NED has it's dangers, too, and any counseling runs the risk of transference, about which auditors are completely ignorant).

I will look into it myself, but I think the effort would be better if someone with legal experience were consulted to make sure that the suggested investigation was something that was really possible and had a leg to stand on.

I don't know how to reach him but this might be something that Graham Berry could at least sniff test for you to insure that there is legal validity. I would think that Arnie would know how to reach out to Graham.

I think that the difficulty may be in drawing a causal relationship between someone with psychiatric problems and refusing their meds and the CoS. The reason I say so is because there are many (most notably schizophrenia and bipolar disorder) that have a history of independently stopping beneficial medications. That is one of the things that the psychiatrist tries to monitor because it is so common.

Voltaire's Child
24th November 2008, 10:57 PM
I won't be signing it but I will defend YOUR right to sign it or any petition that you'd like to sign. (Voltaire is my inspiration)

uniquemand
24th November 2008, 11:19 PM
I think they are pretty careful about that stuff ever since the emeter raids. I don't know how many things I signed over the years saying I wasn't receiving medical treatment, just spiritual counselling. worth a shot but I doubt it would go anywhere.


Why is it so necessary for the Church to have people sign these waivers before each service? I think that there is a strong argument to be made that Dianetics makes medical claims, and that auditors are performing a variation of Freudian psychoanalysis called "Abreaction" when they practice Dianetics.

Lovesnightsky
24th November 2008, 11:51 PM
Whenever a staff or public arrived at the org sick, they are were not sent home or to the doctor. They were given an "assist" and sent back to post or academy.
In fact, I know that all of my family who was there at the time was dragged from a sickbed at one time or another to go to the org to get "assists" and get back on post.

I myself had to give other staff "assists" to alleviate serious back pain, arthritis, headaches, flu and more.

If you want documented proof of the physical and mental treatments given in scientology orgs, then raid the PC files, or simply look at the questionnaire used to find "ruin". The questions are far from spiritual.

Voltaire's Child
25th November 2008, 02:58 AM
I saw assists given and lots of cal-mag, too. But I also had pcs (when I was on course) who were sent home and told that they had to seek medical care from a doctor (or in one case, a dentist) before they could get more auditing.

I did perceive a disdain for "medicos" both in Hubbard's writings and where I was on lines, for sure. But it wasn't always like that. It would be interesting to figure out the percentages, to actually chart it. Like maybe 65/35 (against medical care, I mean)?

Operating Wog
25th November 2008, 03:18 AM
Why is it so necessary for the Church to have people sign these waivers before each service? I think that there is a strong argument to be made that Dianetics makes medical claims, and that auditors are performing a variation of Freudian psychoanalysis called "Abreaction" when they practice Dianetics.

again, it started with the raids where the emeters were confiscated and scn accused of practicing medicine. now if you have a physical complaint you are told that scientology can handle that, sign a bunch of papers saying that you know it can't handle that, hand over your money and go try to handle it. then when you run out of money, someone remembers that sickness = pts and you get routed to ethics.

Free to shine
25th November 2008, 03:41 AM
again, it started with the raids where the emeters were confiscated and scn accused of practicing medicine. now if you have a physical complaint you are told that scientology can handle that, sign a bunch of papers saying that you know it can't handle that, hand over your money and go try to handle it. then when you run out of money, someone remembers that sickness = pts and you get routed to ethics.

:dieslaughing: Yep, that about sums it up!

Lovesnightsky
25th November 2008, 04:40 AM
I saw assists given and lots of cal-mag, too. But I also had pcs (when I was on course) who were sent home and told that they had to seek medical care from a doctor (or in one case, a dentist) before they could get more auditing.

I did perceive a disdain for "medicos" both in Hubbard's writings and where I was on lines, for sure. But it wasn't always like that. It would be interesting to figure out the percentages, to actually chart it. Like maybe 65/35 (against medical care, I mean)?

The point is not that they may be "against" medical care. The point is they are "treating" medical conditions with assists and auditing.

uniquemand
25th November 2008, 04:57 AM
I'm all for consenting adults being allowed to do whatever they want to address an issue of theirs, or to work on their self-development in any way they wish, so long as there is informed consent, and I don't feel that Scientology provides informed consent; in fact, I think they do exactly the opposite, they "ruin" you (find your ruin) to obtain your consent, and they never inform you as to known mechanics that what they are doing is hypnosis. I'm all for using hypnosis, if the person is aware what is happening, what side effects are possible (transference, being overwhelmed in abreactive response, which can be traumatizing, and both of these things are played upon by the Church of Scientology to create a bond which is then exploited for the person's assets and labor), and the truth of what it can address and what it cannot, without laying in suggestions of magical powers that don't exist, and without deliberately inducing a form of mania and absorbtion in fantasy so disconnected from reality that it destroys all relationships and activities outside of the Church.

Frankly, I think this is evil. It is my definition of evil: deliberately controlling people in a way which destroys their independent lives and makes them into minions. Now, I am not given to hyperbole, but I am serious when I say this is evil. It is evil to deprive a child of their parent, or a husband of his wife (and vice versa). It is monstrous. I think it should be illegal, and I'll bet it is.

Voltaire's Child
25th November 2008, 04:58 AM
The point is not that they may be "against" medical care. The point is they are "treating" medical conditions with assists and auditing.

'Cept when they're telling pcs to go to the doctor.

I'm not saying they don't treat medical conditions with assists and auditing some of the time because it does happen. However, it's out tech and out policy to do so.

Voltaire's Child
25th November 2008, 05:06 AM
I'm all for consenting adults being allowed to do whatever they want to address an issue of theirs, or to work on their self-development in any way they wish, so long as there is informed consent, and I don't feel that Scientology provides informed consent; in fact, I think they do exactly the opposite, they "ruin" you (find your ruin) to obtain your consent, and they never inform you as to known mechanics that what they are doing is hypnosis. I'm all for using hypnosis, if the person is aware what is happening, what side effects are possible (transference, being overwhelmed in abreactive response, which can be traumatizing, and both of these things are played upon by the Church of Scientology to create a bond which is then exploited for the person's assets and labor), and the truth of what it can address and what it cannot, without laying in suggestions of magical powers that don't exist, and without deliberately inducing a form of mania and absorbtion in fantasy so disconnected from reality that it destroys all relationships and activities outside of the Church.

Frankly, I think this is evil. It is my definition of evil: deliberately controlling people in a way which destroys their independent lives and makes them into minions. Now, I am not given to hyperbole, but I am serious when I say this is evil. It is evil to deprive a child of their parent, or a husband of his wife (and vice versa). It is monstrous. I think it should be illegal, and I'll bet it is.

I don't think it's hypnotic at all. But the indoctrination to which people are subjected in CofS certainly overrides many things such as independent thought, earlier conditioning and so on. And that's not good.

Also to say they ruin someone and say that's synonymous with ruin FINDING- is not correct. To ruin someone, that means one beggars them, brings them utterly down. Finding someone's ruin is just that- finding (or claiming to or attempting to) the thing in life that the person considers to be his or her ruination. Not the same thing as ruining someone. And ruin finding is, from what I could see, done as a proselytization/regging exercise.

Scn has a lot of potential effects that vary from person to person- that's the problem with the excessive promises by reges. And, also, speaking as a businesswoman in the financial, banking and legal fields, I find it very sad indeed that staff members who often are so isolated from everyday life in modern society irresponsibly not only urge people to max out their credit cards but they actually try to tell members that they will get the money back from (the universe? The big Kahuna in the sky? What??) __________ if they cough it up now.

There's nothing wrong or trance inducing about auditing or TRs at all. The only problems in Scn are the policies pertaining to treatment of alleged SPs, PTSes, staff, critics, etc. Those are the things that people, if they knew up front, would not be willing to join CofS if they had that information that this could and most likely would happen to them. THAT's where informed consent is sadly absent in CofS and it's rooted in Hubbard's writings.

Lovesnightsky
25th November 2008, 05:06 AM
'Cept when they're telling pcs to go to the doctor.

I'm not saying they don't treat medical conditions with assists and auditing some of the time because it does happen. However, it's out tech and out policy to do so.

Again. I am not saying they never tell people to go to the doctor or take their meds. I myself was witness to the senior C/S and an executive trying to get one of our auditors to take meds for epilepsy given to him by a doctor. He refused because it would mean no more auditing for him.

What I am saying, and whether out tech or not, they do treat medical, physical, emotional and mental conditions without a license.
Remember, they have no business giving assists. Just spiritual counseling.

Voltaire's Child
25th November 2008, 05:11 AM
I disagree. Assists are meant to promote healing and are specifically, per Hubbard, not meant to actually treat illnesses. If someone substitutes assists for medical treatment, then he or she is "doing it rong".

Sick pcs aren't supposed to be audited, either, per Hubbard.

But- and hopefully this won't upset anyone but I am going to be candid about this- I personally would have absolutely no problem if someone DID use assists and auditing for medical treatment/in lieu of medical treatment as long as it was his or her own choice. And by that, I mean REALLY his or her own choice. Not where he's euchred or pushed into it.

Lovesnightsky
25th November 2008, 05:15 AM
I disagree. Assists are meant to promote healing and are specifically, per Hubbard, not meant to actually treat illnesses. If someone substitutes assists for medical treatment, then he or she is "doing it rong".

Sick pcs aren't supposed to be audited, either, per Hubbard.

But- and hopefully this won't upset anyone but I am going to be candid about this- I personally would have absolutely no problem if someone DID use assists and auditing for medical treatment/in lieu of medical treatment as long as it was his or her own choice. And by that, I mean REALLY his or her own choice. Not where he's euchred or pushed into it.

Treatment: "care provided to improve a situation (especially medical procedures or applications that are intended to relieve illness or injury)"

When does a person cease to have a choice? The auditor I talked about, did he have a choice? He wants to go all the way up the bridge. If he takes the meds subscribed to him by a doctor he will not be able to go up the bridge.
My view is that he was mindfucked so his rational for not taking meds is not his choice.

Voltaire's Child
25th November 2008, 05:23 AM
I don't advocate pressuring anyone into not taking needed meds or obtaining needed medical treatment. This is probably one of the many reasons I'm ex CofS, just like almost everyone else here, and an heretical Scn'ist (NOT like everyone here- just some.).

klidov
25th November 2008, 06:07 AM
This is overdue. Whatever efforts have been taken in the past have failed, on this score. I suggest we create a petition, somewhere, circulate it as far and wide as possible, and then try to get the Attorney General to prosecute these people for encouraging people not to take their psychiatric medication. The mental health counseling that they offer as "pastoral counseling" is another area that should be probed again, as I think it is a threat, particularly the stuff beyond clear (although abreaction/NED has it's dangers, too, and any counseling runs the risk of transference, about which auditors are completely ignorant).

I will look into it myself, but I think the effort would be better if someone with legal experience were consulted to make sure that the suggested investigation was something that was really possible and had a leg to stand on.

UM-you got me thinking. This post encouraged me to write this one, so as to not be off-topic here.

http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=8801

Björkist
25th November 2008, 06:22 AM
I suggest we create a petition, somewhere, circulate it as far and wide as possible, and then try to get the Attorney General to prosecute these people for encouraging people not to take their psychiatric medication.

I find it interesting that the CofS encouraging people not to take Psychiatric drugs is worthy of petitioning, but the medical industry lobbying to make a variety of natural and sacred substances/plants illegal followed by instigating extreme criminal penalties for the use and possession of these plants doesn't get much attention. :confused2:

The fabricated maladies (only symptoms, really) which many psych drugs are prescribed for can be handled a myriad of other ways instead of being covered up by dangerous and addicitve test tube chemicals.

http://www.clubhousewreckards.com/images/madscientist.jpg

or

http://www.erowid.org/library/books/images/visionary_plant_consciousness.jpg

riptide
25th November 2008, 09:38 AM
[QUOTE=Lovesnightsky;176601
In fact, I know that all of my family who was there at the time was dragged from a sickbed at one time or another to go to the org to get "assists" and get back on post.
[/QUOTE]

I'll never forget, once I was sick and not studentable. Told the course Sup. I was told to come in and do MEST work in the course admin area if I could not study. WTF ?????

degraded being
25th November 2008, 10:27 AM
the topic still is:

Today, 01:02 AM
uniquemand
Patron Meritorious
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 759

Petition to Prosecute the CofS for Practicing Medicine without a License
This is overdue. Whatever efforts have been taken in the past have failed, on this score. I suggest we create a petition, somewhere, circulate it as far and wide as possible, and then try to get the Attorney General to prosecute these people for encouraging people not to take their psychiatric medication. The mental health counseling that they offer as "pastoral counseling" is another area that should be probed again, as I think it is a threat, particularly the stuff beyond clear (although abreaction/NED has it's dangers, too, and any counseling runs the risk of transference, about which auditors are completely ignorant).

I will look into it myself, but I think the effort would be better if someone with legal experience were consulted to make sure that the suggested investigation was something that was really possible and had a leg to stand on.
__________________
"We're all out of this together" - some dude

uniquemand
25th November 2008, 08:21 PM
I find it interesting that the CofS encouraging people not to take Psychiatric drugs is worthy of petitioning, but the medical industry lobbying to make a variety of natural and sacred substances/plants illegal followed by instigating extreme criminal penalties for the use and possession of these plants doesn't get much attention. :confused2:

The fabricated maladies (only symptoms, really) which many psych drugs are prescribed for can be handled a myriad of other ways instead of being covered up by dangerous and addicitve test tube chemicals.

<snip images>



If you would like to petition concerning those things, that's fine, but it's completely off-topic.