The history of the PatVerfü

Speech as in­tro­duc­tion to the pre­miè­re of the ci­ne­ma com­mer­cial for the Pat­Ver­fue on 31st Ja­nu­a­ry 2012 in the ci­ne­ma Mo­vie­men­to in Ber­lin.

René Talbot hält die Einführungsrede

De­ar Guests, Wel­co­me to the pre­mie­re of the ci­ne­ma com­mer­cial Pat­Ver­fü!

My na­me is Re­né Tal­bot and I will ac­com­pa­ny you along with Ali­ce Hal­mi at this event.

To­day we pre­sent a new di­men­si­on of ad­ver­ti­sing the Pat­Ver­fü and so I want to  tell you a sto­ry, the histo­ry of the Pat­Ver­fü. It is in­ten­ded pri­ma­ri­ly to un­der­stand what this cle­ver li­ving will is all about: self-de­ter­mi­na­ti­on.

Sin­ce 62 ye­ars the­re is the con­sti­tu­tio­nal right, but on­ly in the last ye­ar the Fe­deral Su­pre­me Court re­co­gni­zed that the tor­tu­re of the vic­tims who  ex­pe­ri­ence com­pul­so­ry tre­at­ment in  psych­ia­try is a vio­la­ti­on of the­se con­sti­tu­tio­nal rights - which are them­sel­ves hu­man rights - and the law per­mit­ting this vio­la­ti­on is in­con­sis­tent with the­se con­sti­tu­tio­nal rights.  The as­s­ault com­mit­ted by the me­di­cal staff was al­ways a crime. This is ju­ri­di­cal pro­gress and that one al­so is ab­le to pro­tect on­eself against psych­iatric im­pr­i­son­ment with a spe­cial PAD, just the Pat­Ver­fü, had an his­to­ri­cal pre­cur­sor:

In Ju­ly 1982, Tho­mas Szasz pu­blis­hed in the jour­nal Ame­ri­can Psy­cho­lo­gist the text „The Psych­iatric Will: A New Me­cha­nism for Pro­tec­ting Per­sons Against „Psy­cho­sis“ and Psych­ia­try“. The term Psych­iatric Will, which was la­ter adop­ted by the Lu­n­a­tic-Of­fen­si­ve, trans­la­ted a bit as­kew  as „Psych­ia­tri­sches Tes­ta­ment“, re­cei­ved its in­spi­ra­ti­on from the so-cal­led „Li­ving Will“. The first Li­ving Will was pu­blis­hed in 1967 in a lec­tu­re by Lu­is Kut­ner, a la­wy­er in Chi­ca­go, who stood al­so ex­ten­si­ve­ly for hu­man rights, and pu­blis­hed it in wri­ting in the In­dia­na Law Jour­nal 1969.

On­ce a per­son had lost his/her sta­tus as a le­gal en­ti­ty by the dia­gno­sis of an al­le­ged „men­tal ill­ness“, doc­tors in psych­ia­try al­ways could do just about anything they wan­ted, even against the will of tho­se af­fec­ted. In the 60s, me­di­ci­ne ma­de such pro­gress that in life-threa­tening si­tua­tions suc­cess has be­en achie­ved, which en­ab­led sur­vi­val. Howe­ver, this was felt espe­cial­ly by fa­mi­liy mem­bers as un­di­gni­fied. Out­side the walls of a psych­iatric ward, an­xie­ty aro­se from the me­di­cal pos­si­bi­li­ties, par­ti­cu­lar­ly tho­se in in­ten­si­ve ca­re.
The de­si­re not to „re­main con­nec­ted to tu­bes“, was for­mu­la­ted and found its li­mits in the le­gis­la­ti­on on for­ced psych­ia­try.

Con­tra­ry to the right on one’s own bo­dy, sin­ce mo­re than 150 ye­ars phy­si­ci­ans have be­en in a po­si­ti­on of power over the hu­man bo­dy, be­cau­se the in­ten­ti­on to com­mit sui­ci­de was de­fi­ned as a di­se­a­se and me­di­ci­na­li­zed. Tho­mas Szasz re­co­gni­zed ear­ly that the pu­nish­ment for sui­ci­de at­tempts is the root of psych­ia­try and so his pro­po­sal in 1982 was on­ly lo­gi­cal. With the Psych­iatric Will the at­tempt was ma­de to ban in ad­van­ce in wri­ting psych­iatric tre­at­ment, par­ti­cu­lar­ly in­carce­ra­ti­on and for­ced tre­at­ment si­mi­lar to pro­hi­bi­t­ing me­di­cal in­ten­si­ve ca­re at the end of life.

In bo­th fiel­ds of use the jud­ges fa­ced the dif­fi­cul­ty in get­ting two con­flic­ting laws un­der one ro­of: on the one hand the self-de­ter­mi­na­ti­on as free­dom in Ar­ti­cle 2 of the Ger­man con­sti­tu­ti­on (or the Con­sti­tu­ti­on of the United Sta­tes) and on the other hand psych­iatric spe­cial laws to pu­nish the sui­ci­de at­tempts, or at least to for­ce ill­ness in­sight by psych­iatric con­fi­ne­ment and for­ced drug­ging.

The con­flict of two, con­tra­dic­to­ry, laws can on­ly be sol­ved by the le­gis­la­tu­re pas­sing a new law, which ex­pli­ci­tly has to gi­ve the prio­ri­ty to self-de­ter­mi­na­ti­on of an adult over his own bo­dy, not just im­pli­ci­ty.

This hap­pen­ed in the U.S. for the Li­ving-Will for the dy­ing pha­se for the first time in 1976 in Ca­li­for­nia. Up to 1990 all U.S. sta­tes fol­lo­wed. Howe­ver, nowhe­re in the world had the sa­me claim for psych­ia­try be­en re­co­gni­zed by law. So for ex­amp­le the Lu­n­a­tic-Of­fen­si­ve brought out  the trans­la­ti­on of the Psych­iatric Will of Tho­mas Szasz  as a spe­cial edi­ti­on No. 1 in Oc­to­ber 1987, but had no le­gal ef­fect, as it was not ac­cep­ted by jud­ges at all or on­ly ran­dom­ly from time to time. But in le­gal terms the­re was one ti­ny pro­gress in Ger­ma­ny in 1992, when for the first time the law for guar­di­anship was sof­te­ned and for the first time in­ca­pa­ci­ta­ted peop­le  we­re ab­le to ef­fec­tively aut­ho­ri­ze a la­wy­er them­sel­ves.

In 1999 by an amend­ment to the law this per­mis­si­on to aut­ho­ri­ze was ex­ten­ded ex­pli­ci­tly to all adults (re­pe­sen­ta­ti­on agree­ment). This am­mend­ment to the law en­su­red the pri­ma­cy of tho­se pre-aut­ho­riz­a­ti­ons over the court ap­poin­ted guar­di­an al­so for the so-cal­led „high­ly per­so­nal af­fairs“ of he­alth ca­re, that is for the ap­pro­val or re­jec­tion of me­di­cal ex­ami­na­ti­ons and tre­at­ments.

Of cour­se, we immedia­te­ly took ad­van­ta­ge of this loo­p­ho­le so that our la­wy­er Tho­mas Sa­schen­bre­cker spe­cial­ly wro­te for us a spe­cial power of at­tor­ney, cal­led the „Vo-Vo“. The ju­di­cia­ry, as al­ways, when it ca­me to psych­ia­try tried their ut­most to de­ny psych­iatric vic­tims their ba­sic rights and to re­tain con­trol over de­cisi­ons of such pre­vious aut­ho­ri­zed re­pre­sen­ta­ti­ves. So the le­gis­la­tu­re had to sett­le things on­ce mo­re ex­pli­ci­tly.

And it did:
On 18.6.2009 with a lar­ge ma­jo­ri­ty  the li­ving will law pas­sed in par­lia­ment. By law not on­ly re­gu­la­ted spe­ci­fi­cal­ly who may be aut­ho­ri­zed to ta­ke pre­ce­dence over a court de­cisi­on, but al­so what de­cisi­ons one may make: for all di­se­a­ses in all sta­ges, from an in­iti­al ex­ami­na­ti­on to the gra­ve and adults could now ban all me­di­cal af­fairs in ad­van­ce for the time being deemed/diagnosed  as in­ca­pa­ci­ta­ted. We had lon­ged for this pro­gress in chan­ge of the law so much, and ac­tively sup­por­ted it espe­cial­ly with the help of Prof. Wolf-Die­ter Narr. Well pre­pa­red for this mo­ment, we we­re ab­le to pu­blish in­stant­ly at the pro­cla­ma­ti­on of a ma­jo­ri­ty in the Bun­des­tag our spe­cial PAD with a built-in power of at­tor­ney with our new do­main on the in­ter­net.

The Pat­Ver­fue uses the ex­press­ly pro­vi­ded op­por­tu­ni­ty in the law to pro­hi­bit me­di­cal ex­ami­na­ti­ons in ad­van­ce. The pre­ven­ti­on of un­wan­ted psych­iatric dia­gno­ses is at the he­art of Pat­Ver­fue, be­cau­se that clo­ses by law the trap­door to the psych­iatric di­sen­fran­chise­ment and dis­em­power­ment, hu­mi­lia­ti­on and ab­u­se .

Much ea­sier than with the pre­vious mo­del, the Vo-Vo, be­cau­se now ever­y­bo­dy can at any time de­fend hims­elf by pre­sen­ting this uni­la­te­ral one pa­ge de­cla­ra­ti­on of his will by car­ry­ing it in his/her pur­se. This di­rect ef­fect is re­co­gni­zed in the state­ments of bo­th the Fe­deral Mi­nis­ter of Jus­ti­ce as well as the Fe­deral Coun­cil of me­di­cal Doc­tors. Per­sons aut­ho­ri­zed by the built-in re­pre­sen­ta­ti­on agree­ment are on­ly a se­cond li­ne of de­fen­se, but their exis­tence on pa­per de­s­troys the hope of doc­tors or re­la­ti­ves that a judge could still in­stall a cus­to­di­anship and help the me­di­cal power to pr­e­vail.

Mo­re peop­le should know that this re­vo­lu­tio­na­ry op­por­tu­ni­ty now exists! That is the pur­po­se of our cam­pai­gn and it loo­ks li­ke this: roll the film!