#dr gwen adshead

[sad-wet-cat-hannibal]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0025vgy

U want to hear about men who perpetrated violence making positive change to overcome their trauma and undo bullshit gender rules?

Listen to this years Reith Lectures free on the BBC Sounds app. They're given by forensic psychologist Dr Gwen Adshead and this episode from Dec 10th she's talking about the links between adverse childhood experiences and perpetrating violence, recorded at a UK therapeutic prison for helping ppl convicted of violent crime to work through their trauma, no matter how long it takes, in a supportive environment.

There's a Q&A with the inmates and it's really positive.

(slightly paraphrasing from memory) "I went to the group with my Ugly Self, and they gave me acceptance."

It's a super important topic and I'm glad this year's lectures are focusing on it.

[miastaslow]

Kwiecień w Kielcach. Zapowiedź spotkania

Książka: Diabeł, którego znasz. Psychiatria sądowa bez tajemnic

Autor: Gwen Adshead i Eileen Horne

Data spotkania: 2 kwietnia (niedziela)

Godzina: 16:00

Miejsce spotkania: Choco Obsession, ul. Św. Leonarda 15

Osoba kontaktowa: Kasia, tel. 507 124 991, leskatarzyna@gmail.com

Literatura non-fiction ma w naszym Klubie z Kawą nad Książką passę jak nigdy dotąd. Po reportażach Roberta Kolkera, Urszuli Jabłońskiej i rozmowie Krystyny Romanowskiej ze Zbigniewem Lwem-Starowiczem, które omawialiśmy na ostatnich spotkaniach, znowu sięgniemy po ten typ twórczości. Tym razem dr Gwen Adshead podzieli się z nami – za pośrednictwem swojej książki oczywiście – historiami z własnej kariery zawodowej. A ta jest niebanalna, bowiem kobieta zajmuje się psychiatrią sądową, ma więc do czynienia z najbrutalniejszymi przestępcami. Jak się z nimi rozmawia? Co praca z takimi ludźmi-potworami może zmienić dla nich i dla społeczeństwa? Czy po przeczytaniu tej książki będziemy bardziej empatyczni, czy też pozbędziemy się nawet resztek empatii?

Zapraszam do dyskusji!

Kasia Leśniak

[partisan-by-default]

“Why wouldn’t we help?” is my usual reply. There is a nuance here that some people may not wish to acknowledge: in prison, the identities of victim and perpetrator are not always distinct. Most of our prison population qualifies as both; recent studies in the UK and the US confirm that most convicted offenders have an experience of trauma, abuse and violence at least four times higher than the general population.

The way a society treats the least of its members is a kind of barometer of justice. In the UK, as in many other countries, the punishment for criminal rule-breaking is deprivation of liberty. Once someone is incarcerated, we have committed to helping them change and become less risky. Aside from a small subset of extreme cases, it is reasonable to believe that most offenders can return to the community after serving their time and live productive, crime-free lives. This is a concept enshrined in UK law since the Penitentiary Act of 1779, which made the rehabilitation of prisoners a function of all prisons.

But that mission is not always accomplished. Our justice system and the programmes in prisons designed to reduce recidivism often fall short. Resourcing is insufficient; the most recent survey from the National Audit Office indicates that among prisoners in England and Wales, as many as 90% have poor mental health, including PTSD and depression. Perhaps only 10-20% of the most acute cases will ever get seen by a forensic professional like me. On release, ex-offenders contend with economic and social problems that can quickly drive them back inside. Within the female prison estate, for example, more than half of women face homelessness when released.

[luxe-pauvre]

Ethical reasoning in medicine has drawn on a range of theories in moral philosophy. There is obviously a close relationship between medical ethics and the utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, namely that the doctor should act in such a way as to bring about the best medical consequences for the greatest number of people, or act in such a way as to minimise harmful consequences for the greatest number of people. Although it may seem unarguable that doctors should always do what is best for their patient’s welfare, it is not always clear how the assessment of welfare is to be done, and from whose perspective. A common criticism of focusing on medical consequences is that a utilitarian approach does not help doctors and patients to weigh up different consequences, nor does it tell them what to do when doctors, patients and carers weigh anticipated consequences very differently. [. . .] In 1979, a model of medical ethics was proposed that has become a basic starting point for discussing and teaching healthcare ethics. It proposed a set of principles that would address both consequences and duties in medicine. Doctors should respect the principle of doing good and doing no harm, but they should also have respect for the patient’s views and choices about their condition and treatment, and respect their autonomy over decisions that affect them directly. Doctors should also respect a principle of justice in healthcare, where justice implies fairness of access to treatment. This model is known as the “four principles” approach, and is now often used as the basis of training in healthcare ethics. Possibly its greatest value is that it has enabled the study of healthcare ethics to become more central to the training and development of doctors. Doctors used to learn about ethical reasoning by watching their trainers and seniors in a purely clinical context, but the four principles gave them a structure for thinking about their ethical decisions that was based on arguments from moral philosophy, not clinical medicine. A good ethical decision in medicine could be said to be one that takes account of the clinical consequences for the patient and embodies a duty to respect the views of the patient and the justice of the process.

Dr Gwen Adshead, The doctor’s dilemma: is it ever good to do harm?

[viralhottopics]

The doctors dilemma: is it ever good to do harm | Dr Gwen Adshead

The Long Read: If a patients heart stops, the doctor can resuscitate them. But how does the doctor decide if its the right thing to do?

Read more: http://bit.ly/2k6V8HA

from The doctors dilemma: is it ever good to do harm | Dr Gwen Adshead

[latestnewsvirls]

The doctors dilemma: is it ever good to do harm | Dr Gwen Adshead

The Long Read: If a patients heart stops, the doctor can resuscitate them. But how does the doctor decide if its the right thing to do? Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/us

The post The doctors dilemma: is it ever good to do harm | Dr Gwen Adshead appeared first on Latest News Virals - The Latest Headlines From Around The World..

from Latest News Virals – The Latest Headlines From Around The World. http://www.latestnewsvirals.com/the-doctors-dilemma-is-it-ever-good-to-do-harm-dr-gwen-adshead/