I heard on the news that she is admitting that she is not well and needs to be looked after by someone else.
Britney Spears, Conservatorship and Ableism
- Thread starter Samson
- Start date
PhroX
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2009
- Messages
- 2,783
I admit I haven't paid that much attention to the latest news on the subject, but when this first came up a year or so ago (I forget exactly when), my understanding of Britney's position was that she acknowledged the conservatorship had been what she needed when it was put in place, but that her mental health had greatly improved and she felt she was now able to make her own decisions again (at least to a greater extent than she was allowed to).
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Forcing people to do meds is a complicated question when it comes to people that are extremely unable to function without. In the ward and such, I've seen my share of people that continuously yell literal insanity or punch themselves, etc. Or people that are catatonic and can't move. This is where it becomes more of a question whether they should be forced to get on a dose of something. Still, I hold that if the patient is able to consent, the patient should make the decision.
People like me who can't function without meds (but in a more subdued way, so to say, where I have a connection to reality, even if a bad one), then force is out of the question.
Someone that is able to do concerts should not be forced on lithium.
I have several acquaintances covering the spectrum of psychiatric functionality, so to say, beyond myself. I was also introduced to real literature on the subject when first diagnosed (it's part of a program in DK). So "I'm not a psychiatrist, but." Being in treatment and knowing their positions on this does give me a bit of say in this.
Being able to go to concerts on meds, that's at the point where you should have legal jurisdiction over yourself, and be allowed an opt-in situation to guardianship, medication and treatment.
Reading the thread, I see there's a discussion on whether a judge or a psychiatrist should have input on this. I hold both, but would like to remind everyone that the US psychiatric system isn't great, to say the least. Legal system also has severe problems.
People like me who can't function without meds (but in a more subdued way, so to say, where I have a connection to reality, even if a bad one), then force is out of the question.
Someone that is able to do concerts should not be forced on lithium.
I have several acquaintances covering the spectrum of psychiatric functionality, so to say, beyond myself. I was also introduced to real literature on the subject when first diagnosed (it's part of a program in DK). So "I'm not a psychiatrist, but." Being in treatment and knowing their positions on this does give me a bit of say in this.
Being able to go to concerts on meds, that's at the point where you should have legal jurisdiction over yourself, and be allowed an opt-in situation to guardianship, medication and treatment.
Reading the thread, I see there's a discussion on whether a judge or a psychiatrist should have input on this. I hold both, but would like to remind everyone that the US psychiatric system isn't great, to say the least. Legal system also has severe problems.
Last edited:
There is no answer in any of medicine that reaches the mathematical level of proof. This does not stop us using maths to determine appropriate medical interventions. An example of using maths to determine the strength of evidence with regards objective mental ability as measured by the Mini-Mental Status Examination and decision making ability as measured by the Regional Capacity Assessment Team is this paper. Core results are in the table below. I am certainly not saying this is perfect (sample size is only 152, I think the table should have confidence intervals and the determination of decision making is pretty heuristic) but it does demonstrate that evidence based medicine is possible in this field.
Another way of looking at it is to compare it to two other high profile cases:
- Should Derek Chauvin go to jail?
- Should we use Ivermectin to treat COVID?
Spoiler Tables of relationship between mental capacity and decision making :
That’s a lotta numbers so I’m gonna say it’s true!
Anyway, I was going to say what @Cutlass (and perhaps others) have said in that $$$ stakes create a perverse incentive for her guardianship as musical pimpery.
If she needs psychiatric care or supervision, it should be under the authority of someone who doesn’t stand to profit obscenely off it.
Anyway, I was going to say what @Cutlass (and perhaps others) have said in that $$$ stakes create a perverse incentive for her guardianship as musical pimpery.
If she needs psychiatric care or supervision, it should be under the authority of someone who doesn’t stand to profit obscenely off it.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
There is no answer in any of medicine that reaches the mathematical level of proof. This does not stop us using maths to determine appropriate medical interventions. An example of using maths to determine the strength of evidence with regards objective mental ability as measured by the Mini-Mental Status Examination and decision making ability as measured by the Regional Capacity Assessment Team is this paper. Core results are in the table below. I am certainly not saying this is perfect (sample size is only 152, I think the table should have confidence intervals and the determination of decision making is pretty heuristic) but it does demonstrate that evidence based medicine is possible in this field.
Another way of looking at it is to compare it to two other high profile cases:
It is not too controversial to say that Merrick Garland is better placed to decide on the former, and Anthony Fauci is better placed to decide on the latter. Which of these is more the Britney case more like? I would say it is more like the Ivermectin one, as it is an intervention for the individuals benefit that derives from a medical diagnosis.
- Should Derek Chauvin go to jail?
- Should we use Ivermectin to treat COVID?
Spoiler Tables of relationship between mental capacity and decision making :
Oh we should consult data, sure. But its only so useful. Numbers are always the justification when we do something barbaric. Like tweak around our reviticism laws. Or make permanent registries of offenses.
I mean, I like charts, but they're not much good without thier articles. Especially if I'm wading into uncovered territory for me.
Edit: argh, I got distracted and didn't put in the rest. Reading articles is fun, but it takes a lot of time, I only have so much capacity to absorb. It's a dilemma.
Edit Edit super argh: Ok, and the actual point. Math informs the decision what is an appropriate medical intervention. But doctors are not in a position to determine that. They're still in the position where they can tell us what, with math, is likely to happen from all our choices. That's it. That's all math does. "Appropriate medical intervention" is downriver from that stop. It's a totally different question. It's the whole reasoning behind "expert testimony," right? And how does that go?
Last edited:
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,338
She's required to do a huge amount of performances, can't control the money for them, and get's punished if she doesn't work those performances with enough cheer and dedication.
looks like it's the portion on slavery that should apply...
EnglishEdward
Deity
I dare say appointing a conservator, guardian or regent or whatever when a person clearly cannot manage their life may be a good thing,
but it seems to me that her holding down a very demanding job as a top Las Vegas performance artist rather refutes its relevance.
but it seems to me that her holding down a very demanding job as a top Las Vegas performance artist rather refutes its relevance.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Second point is very important, yes.
That said, for the first... For the vast majority of people, even those with problems, it should be an opt-in thing. Thing is that most people that can't manage their lives won't actually be helped much if they don't want the help. It often doesn't quite work if the person is able to consent and doesn't :/
Performing on a stage and not being able to handle your own life in general aren't mutually exclusive. There are plenty of actors who lost control over their lives, and there are also plenty of sports stars who couldn't handle all the money they suddenly had and ruined themselves. There are also plenty of famous musicians and actors who killed themselves in the midst of their career. The ability to perform doesn't automatically make you able to live a normal life.
Britney Spears certainly benefitted from her father taking control. She was a complete mess at that time, and her mother caused quite a few of those issues. Now, whether her father is still the right person for it right now, or whether the time has come to reduce or remove the conservatorship is something independent medical experts should need to define. It certainly should be possible for a person who is under conservatorship to get a proper examination that is outside of the control of everyone connected to the case.
That being said, the last thing anyone should listen to, is what some "fans" claim.
Britney Spears certainly benefitted from her father taking control. She was a complete mess at that time, and her mother caused quite a few of those issues. Now, whether her father is still the right person for it right now, or whether the time has come to reduce or remove the conservatorship is something independent medical experts should need to define. It certainly should be possible for a person who is under conservatorship to get a proper examination that is outside of the control of everyone connected to the case.
That being said, the last thing anyone should listen to, is what some "fans" claim.
This does bring up another point. There are loads of celebrities (as well as many non-celebrities) who have self destructive behaviour. However no one imposed conservatorship on Elvis, Keith Richards, Keith Moon or Iggy Pop. It seems the calls for enforced "help" are generally directed at women, such as Britney and Amy Winehouse. I think this is yet another sign of the patriarchy.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
I want to stress that it's obvious she still benefits heavily from help, but there's a fine line here. I'm neither a fan of hers, nor talking about her in specific here, it's more of a general point about forced treatment. Forced treatment should only be done in quite extreme circumstances. Again, I am very acquainted with lives of mental illness, and there's a difference even between extreme depression, schizophrenia, heavy OCD, etc and the point where it's questionable whether consent is a question. If you are able to function to a degree that you do concerts, even with heavy psychiatric issues, you fall outside the area where you should be forced treatment in spite of consent. This is not just an ethics thing, it's particularly because forced treatment can do harm, if you don't actively listen to what is appropriately working for the patient. This is something that's usually known in psychiatry at large, even if some - if not a lot of - institutions are still reasonably behind here (reforming costs money and even in the West, most psychiatric systems are quite underfunded).
Narz
keeping it real
That wasn't a thing back then.
Lol yeah airtight theory bro.
Cause we know that here in the States there are very, very few men who have no freedom who's lives are controlled by the state.
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
If she was anyone else other than Britney Spears (or a woman, let's be honest this wouldn't happen to a male performer) she'd be in the gutter. This guardianship BS exists only to force her to stay marketable and keep performing. This is legalized slavery hiding behind the pretense of protecting a mentally unwell person.
Last edited:
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
That wasn't a thing back then.
Lol yeah airtight theory bro.
I have to agree with this.
Lexicus
Deity
Lol yeah airtight theory bro.
Which wasn't the point.
bernie14
Filter Manipulator
Despite what we have found out over the last week, a judge has just found Spears to be "substantially unable to manage his or her financial resources or to resist fraud or undue influence." Again, how can this be a legal not a medical decision?
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
Managing financial resources and resisting fraud(illegal influence) and undue influence(illegal influence) are legal terms being defined by a legal expert. There are rights involved. Having a doctor choose on the rights, rather than informing the choice the rights in the light of medical reality? May as well call in that voodoo guy in the picture.
