Recently, I had my yearly mammogram. Ok, sorry, that makes it sound like I religiously follow my proper health regimen and go every year like I should. The fact is, this was my first one.
I have these lovely boobs that have simply had a lot of wear and tear over the years, so they have various irregularities, fibrous cysts, goodness knows what. So of course, after my first mammogram I was called in for a second followup mammogram with a more sensitive kind of diagnostic equipment, and that mammogram was accompanied by an ultrasound.
In the end, the clinician in my case had three sets of objective measures in regard to my lovely, lovely boobs!
I am sure that given my age and medical history the technicians involved in the case, as well as the doctor, pretty much had a good idea of what they had in terms of my boobs well before the doctor reported it to me directly at the end of the final test. However, they waited until they had all the information available before reporting it to me.
This is why I am still somewhat perturbed by the fact that Dr. Kenneth Robson would speculate in regard to Sandra MacVicar's mental health without having done the requisite tests necessary to ensure the best and most accurate diagnosis. To me, this is simply irresponsible and unprofessional behavior.
Plus, I want to add, the doctor who worked with my boobs cautioned me to keep in mind that his results were limited because there were no prior mammograms to compare my recent mammogram to.
I would expect, also, that Dr. Robson would report the extent to which his diagnosis of Sandra MacVicar was limited in its accuracy as the result of the fact that there were multiple tests that he was simply unable to run.
Now, I understand that Dr. Kenneth Robson is of the older generation when mental health diagnosis was pretty much an off the cuff type of operation. In fact, I think that when he was being trained they didn't even have a Diagnostic Manual with which to categorize mental health illnesses. This meant that in his day, psychiatric patients were often labeled with multiple, often conflicting, diagnoses.
However, the field of psychiatry has made significant strides since that time in terms of accuracy of diagnosis and treatment, so there is no longer any kind of excuse for the kind of carelessness and misinformation that was characteristic of an older generation.
Clients in treatment, who are being evaluated for a diagnosis, seriously can and should expect the very best, most accurate results, particularly if they are involved in a legal proceedings where solid and reliable results are of the utmost importance. Thus, it is troubling to see diagnoses bandied about here in connection to the Plaintiff, Sandra MacVicar, diagnoses that could have very serious consequences in her life let alone the lives of her children, which ultimately have very little, if any scientific basis. Personally, I would expect a whole lot more, particularly of a trained medical doctor with considerable experience.
Putting that aside for now, we have the theory that Sandra MacVicar is paranoid. And, indeed, Ms. MacVicar refused to participate in the psychological testing which, I presume, was an order of the court. She also initially gave Dr. Robson releases so that he could speak to individuals associated with the case and then rescinded those releases in connection to three people.
And, according to Dr. Robson, Sandra MacVicar wrote a letter to him stating that she felt "he had made his mind up before he had actually made up his mind."
So what is that? Is it proof that Sandra MacVicar is paranoid?
Well, maybe not because you have another statement to the effect that "Attorney Stevens who had previously represented Ms. MacVicar chastised Dr. Robson for canceling appointments with the children and for being devious with Ms. MacVicar and with the children." Since Attorney Stevens statement does not seem to have influenced the judges' decision in this case, I have to presume that it was not taken seriously. But why? Why wasn't it taken seriously?
Perhaps it was not Dr. Robson's intention to act deviously, but clearly a person independent of Sandra MacVicar did believe he was acting deviously. Attorney Stevens was sufficiently convinced of Dr. Robson's improper behavior that he or she made it very public to the extent that the court considered it an important matter of discussion. This makes Ms. MacVicar's accusations considerably more credible. I would also like to add that any credible custody evaluator should convey the impression as well as the reality of neutrality and professionalism in a case of this kind. Clearly, that was not done.
Thus, we have a custody evaluator, Dr. Kenneth Robson, submitting a very questionable and unreliable diagnosis of Sandra MacVicar to the trial court and acting in a deliberately deceptive manner towards Ms. MacVicar and her children. When you consider the fact that the happiness of these young children and their entire future is in the hands of a psychiatrist who is lying and deceitful, it makes me cringe.
As in all my descriptions of these custody decisions gone wrong, what strikes me the most is how these children are harmed and damaged as a result. Then we have the decision in Buggy v. Buggy, and all I can say is: Here we go again...
To be continued.
No comments:
Post a Comment