How a non-violent psychiatry can be realized in a subversive way

At a training in the psychiatry of Bremen René presented the following way to a non-violent psychiatry:
Realizing non-violent psychiatry subversively and not being afraid of liability claims!
First the positive advance directive was distributed and asked to consider whether, and if so how, one wants to fill it out.
All those who did not sign a positive advance directive would have to participate in the following “change of course” and then all would be exempt from judicial approval procedures and from illegitimate use of force in the psychiatry of the ZKH Bremen-East.
Only those, but only those, who have filled out a positive advance directive including the legalization of coercive measures, do not have to participate in the following exercises. I asked them to only listen and not to actively participate. Of course, they can continue to exercise their violent measures, which are incompatible with human rights, until the legislature has finally abolished PsychKG and forced incarceration under guardianship law.
Next step: the fact who is willing to exercise violence and who is not is announced in a chart with name and portrait in the entrance hall, like this: “Staff members introduce themselves with their special skills”.
With the employees who have signed a positive advance directive and are introduced in the chart, a profitable sado-masochistic department can then be operated on the closed wards, which is advertised with “medically supervised” and even “health insurance subsidized”.

From then on, with each admission/accommodation, with which u.U. a compulsory admission could be considered, the concerning is presented first both the PatVerfü and a positive advance directive for decision and signature (there the PatVerfü was distributed). This would prevent any coercive measure and accommodation (without consent), precisely: Mentally ill? Their own decision! Because the persons concerned, who sign a positive advance directive, are passed on to the colleague with the special knowledge to treatment. A copy of the PatVerfü or positive advance directive is kept on file, along with a brief medical statement that the person was or is capable of giving consent. With a signed PatVerfü, the patient is then treated as desired in open wards without doors that can be locked, drugs to taste, and those who find the mattress too hard can leave. In principle as in the youth hostel, hotel or homeless shelter with drugs offers according to medical opinion.

The closed department shrinks to an area for those who bring a positive advance directive or have signed such a directive, just to an as previously described S/M department.
Only the patients who just want this from the beginning can/should still be forced and can then of course also be forced in a human-legal way – as said as with every S/M game. Later after “recovery” they can still revoke this positive advance directive.

No fear of liability claims

The goal of nonviolence is nonviolence as a value in itself – nonviolence is supposed to make care possible, and this can in no way be achieved by only pretending to be “better”. Otherwise, there will only be more such “treatment” and profiteers from such “treatment” – we call this baroqueification (typical examples of this are the appeasement agencies calling themselves “complaints offices”).

A few thoughts on why those giving treatment have such an “irrational” fear of non-violence.
Why is it that the simple equation that non-violent psychiatry is the necessary condition for better treatment is not understood, but the nonsense that supposedly better “treatment” leads to non-violent psychiatry is advocated?
If one assumes goodwill on the part of the doctors: Fear.
Sadism and cynicism (Foucault’s concept of power is sado-anal) as the driving force would be the other answer.

I suspect that fear of losing power plays the biggest role. Particularly because if it is lost, the blame for the abuses, torture and violence will have to be clarified and that is typically greatly feared – there could be a reckoning (although there was minimal even in the systematic mass murders of 1939-1949, see our 8 demands )

If one wants to refrain from this explanation because of a fearful reaction, then it could be the fear that under the conditions of non-violence “something could happen”, acts of violence could happen, which could be imputed as mistakes to those who treat and not to those who commit them. A typical consequence of the paternalism inherent in this attitude is that non-treatment is conceived as one’s own responsibility towards the one who is thus already made a minor, and this is thus manifested all the more.

In order to take this fear “seriously” and to counter it, it must first be pointed out that the possibility of making mistakes is inherent in medical art. This is, so to speak, the risk of wanting to be/become a doctor. No risk no fun. That’s what doctors are paid for, and in any case, as a rule, the mistakes are made by others who have been mistreated, possibly physically injured (or even if it is only a pecuniary loss, which is borne by a liability insurance).
One could always have made a mistake, overlooked something, succumbed to a misjudgement. People die permanently because of this and it is a consequence of the unprovability that due to the knowledge advantage and the corp spirit of the treating persons, almost never a treating person is held accountable for these committed mistakes. It leads to the hubris of power that from this it is easily concluded that therefore also this power would be, so to speak, God-willed.

Thus, almost nothing can happen to the medical staff in a psychiatric ward, Gert Postel sends his regards. Another example is Prof. Sabine Herpert: Via the documentation Death in Rostock can be found, how Prof. Sabine Herpertz was helped out of trouble by the public prosecutor’s office.
Nevertheless, she stumbled all the way to the top of the DGPPN board heights. Since 2009, she has become Chair of General Psychiatry and Medical Director of the infamous Heidelberg University Hospital, which we christened the Carl Schneider Clinic. That works out great, just as Hans Joachim Rauch worked there until the early 1990s. For decades, Hans-Joachim Rauch, who still made his big appearances as a forensic psychiatrist in Stammheim, was a full professor in Heidelberg. During the Nazi era, then still a pathologist, he dissected the brains of gassed children. The little patients were taken to the Eichberg asylum near Heidelberg to be murdered; Rauch’s institute satisfied the desire for their organs fresh from the living, for example, “in addition to the brain, sections of the entire internal glandular system,” see Spiegel report here.

So what is there to the fear that “something could happen”?
I think, nothing at all, but, as sad as it is, it is all reduced to the fear of losing power, to humiliate, to bully and to be able to fantasize oneself to the ruler by so-called “diagnoses”.

What is overlooked is that just as entropy is always increasing, you can make fish soup out of an aquarium, but the reverse is not possible, the use of violence as punishment for unusual behavior, becomes a dividing wall between those who have experienced this diagnostic slander as final dignification and mistreatment and those who have never had to experience it. Nor can the use of violence be “cured” by further psychiatric treatment (as envisioned by Prof. Kruckenberg in the Foucault Tribunal). A fish soup will never become an aquarium again. This is another reason why the compulsion is held on to so doggedly and the mantra is turned mercilessly that it is only a “disease” (even more bewitching when it is fantasized as a “brain metabolism” disease) like any other, in order to maintain the (self?)deception that this partition does not exist.
Actually Prof. Christian Pross should know that this is exactly the case with torture victims. Instead, in 1997, during the visit in the run-up to the Foucault Tribunal of his treatment center for torture victims, we are told that psychiatric patients treated with electroshock would not be admitted, because there would be such an unbelievable difference between violently electroshock tortured psychiatric slandered (e.g. from the Free University Psychiatry, which is only 600 m away) and the electroshock tortured in authoritarian countries politically and militarily, which are the only ones taken care of in the treatment center. Which brain-organic differences Prof. Christian Pross has imagined there?