Soon, I heard stories about abuse. Even after covering social justice and poverty issues, other disability and human rights concerns, international development, these stories were like body blows.
They told of former workers who loved their work, parents with kids in local schools, welfare recipients being denied benefits, and people whose lives were made impossible by family or peers.
Homelessness was and still is a big issue. It’s easier, now, to find unprocessed or organic foods, untreated cottons, unscented soaps and uncarpeted apartments.
The biggest abusers sabotaged serious needs by arbitrarily suggesting laziness, craziness or dishonesty, then demanding “prove you’re not”.
Magna Carta
(39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.
(40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.
Placing the Presumption on the Wrong Side
The second most common mistake people make is to subject persons with sensitivities to a reverse onus when they report their experience of repeatable, controllable circumstances, contrary to ethics, social convention and laws since the Magna Carta and the Charter of the Forest. This practice is unethical in any context, but becomes especially damaging in clinical medicine, education, social services and journalism.
- injuries and deaths by adverse drug reactions, deaths of persons with consequent eating disorders, suicides of persons with undiagnosed psychiatric sequelae.
- children and adults placed at risk or abused in response to behaviours resulting from consequent undiagnosed learning disabilities, psychiatric sequelae.
- juvenile delinquency.
- chronic health problems, financial damages, ruined careers, broken families, marginalization, suicides.
- failure to accommodate, barriers to normal life activities.
- need for income support.
- denial of income support.
The first suicide I knew of was a psychology professor who told me that he was unable to avoid central nervous system reactions because of his colleagues’ attitudes.
The second suicide was a man Ontario turned down for disability benefits. The Medical Adjudicator in the case cited psychiatrist Donna Stewart’s 1985 CMAJ article. (Two Ontario Chief Coroners were subsequently involved.)
Stewart labelled 15% of the population as mentally ill on the basis of her subjective observations in seven negative assessments for an insurance company. CMAJ Editor Bruce Squires defended their decision to publish.
Our careers, our lives, our health and well-being, our children’s security were all being needlessly compromised because we were subjected to a reverse onus. Most professionals don’t understand how much harm they caused, by presuming to caste doubt on people’s ability to relate their own experiences. It’s not enough for them to say they were quoting experts. Professionals and their employers had an obligation to us directly as persons that they failed on.