Wednesday, 10 March 2021 1:34:34 PM

The core in almost each instance of medical failure comes up when a survivor has attempted to relay something that turns out to be beyond the scope, knowledge or ability of their professional help. They have reached the limit of their ability and when that person is your GP or police officer (someone in a position of "authority" who is now going to fail you as they will base their conclusion/decision on that - it is better that you "delusional" etc than the professional having to acknowledge that they too are vulnerable to complex trauma. They now find your statement to be unbelievable or frightening - it is then that you get a wrong diagnoses of suicidal or some other from the DSM - such is the reality of a trauma response in humans. A dissociation event can cause similar responses in all the following mentioned professions.

The problem lays with their inability and their ignorant (lack of information, training or education) action that they decide on at that time. I have experienced this with lawyers, GPs, inexperienced or traumatized people, religiously conflicted individuals and also other "professionals". This is likely to be an experience that their automatic response jumps on and indicates to them that the situation you were describing is not survivable, is a dangerous situation or such and therefore you need medicating or other "for your own good". The actual result is another medical failure and then another likely suicide brought on by the failure of the professional and not as a result of a failure of the victim. The Royal Commission changed it's style of operation because of factors relating to this.

The real;ity is that the individual has survived and if mistreated they will become a victim again only this time it will be those who are supposed to be their support professional.

This no different (in fact its very likely the very same process in both situations - above and here) that takes places with people who have been raised in a religion who are presented with a piece of evidence, logic or flawless reason - regardless if they are unable to process it there is a high risk that they will take actions that abuse me = iatrogenic. Next try to inform, question or challenge them and they have the power, the connections and the resources and the lack of "education" to turn your act of self preservation or to describe something or gesture/actions into additional "evidence" or your need to be incarcerated, medicated etc. The ration of this in the legal world compared the appallingly poor scales in medicine from my own personal experiences would be on a scale that 6 to 10 times greater in the legal world. Of the hundred or more legal people I have dealt with or attempted to deal I come up with the grand sum of 3 people. In the medical world it would be around 1 in 10 if things are going good. The chances of finding someone in the community with that degree of understanding has to be very low (1 in tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands). In legal worlds this is very often described as "Too many impossibilities", "too many unbelievables" along with a nod and a wink to say here is another loony or that the individual is too damaged to be factual/truthful. In policing I think it would be rarer given that the last time I talked with one (around 2011) re their training description of a trauma survivor. Bizarrely they were told to think of it as someone walking around with a wide gaping bleeding wound and it is festering due to lack of attention over a long period of time. :) My thought at the time was to wonder if they also gave out colored ochres so they could do some rock art about it in a remote cave somewhere.

The 10 second sound bite is "It's vitally important that victims are heard."

Seems it falls into a too difficult basket.

It is very possible that this circumstance came about due to the relationship of a bias toward religion in governance, law, health .... - religion was put first and that puts the full reality of this aspect of trauma behind a blockage that is then protected under religious freedom/the right to practice their religion.