TV3-“Death in Bray” Documentary: Bob Fiddaman Weighs In…

From the Seroxat Sufferers Blog:

Is Patricia Casey the Chosen One?

Controversial Irish psychiatrist Patricia Casey

Irish psychiatrist, Patricia Casey, is at it again.

Once again she has come out and spoke about mental illness and antidepressant use. Casey, who has received much criticism from a number of bloggers over the years, is quoted in today’s edition of The Irish Sunday Times.

Tomorrow evening TV3, an Irish television station, are airing a special documentary that looks deeper into the death of Sebastian Creane, 22, who was stabbed to death on August 16, 2009, by Shane Clancy, 22, who then killed himself at the Creane family home in Bray.

An inquest into the death of Shane Clancy revealed an open verdict, in other words the evidence given at the inquest was insufficient for the Coroner to return a verdict of suicide.

The TV3 documentary, ‘A Search for Justice – Death in Bray’, is set to cause much controversy with the families concerned and one has to ask why this case from 2009 is being regurgitated.

Patricia Casey, who asked to give evidence at Clancy’s inquest but was refused by the coroner, is featured in the documentary along with members of the Clancy and Creane families.

The Irish Sunday Times today quoted Casey, it was a quote that made me choke on the toast I was eating at the time.

Casey claims that research literature “is not in any way convincing” that the drug [citalopram] can lead someone to kill. “I do not think it was the drugs”, Casey told program makers, adding, “I believe it was a psychiatric illness he [Clancy] was suffering from.”

Well, good to see that Casey is only offering her belief and no hard physical evidence to back up her claims.

This pretty much sums up Casey’s chosen profession, psychiatry, a profession based purely on belief and…well, nothing much else really.

Casey never met either Creane or Clancy whilst they were alive yet, in this instance, she is offering her own diagnosis of 22 year-old Shane Clancy.

Does Casey have samples of Shane’s blood or a frozen urine sample? Maybe Casey has a strand of hair and has ran a series of DNA tests that show Clancy had a “psychiatric illness”?

How can Casey, who has in the past claimed antidepressants do not cause suicide [Video below] diagnose a dead person?

Here’s one way of looking at it.

Patricia Casey has been chosen by God to work his miracles. She can see what others can’t see because God has given her this special power… in fact Casey doesn’t even need to see those sickened by mental illness, she has a gift [given to her by God] that allows her to find diseases in dead people that previous professionals missed. Clancy was seen by three separate doctors prior to his death. None of them diagnosed him with a psychiatric illness…then again, they were not chosen by God to perform the miracles that Casey can.

Then again, even Satan can induce miracles [Check out the Book of Revelation for proof of this]

Today, and even in 2009, we have pharmaceutical companies who manufacture powerful SSRi type medications, openly admit that patients taking their drugs [particularly those up to the age of 25] have to be monitored as suicidal thoughts are known to be caused by the medication. Even drug regulators around the world have had to concede this one simple fact. Casey, however, does not acknowledge this.

Here’s another way of looking at it.

Patricia Casey is wrong. Patricia Casey is burying her head in the sand. Patricia Casey likes the attention. Patricia Casey has a conflict of interest where the drug citalopram is concerned. [See here and here] Patricia Casey has a mental illness [Delusional disorder] whereby she cannot tell what is real from what is imagined.

So, has she been chosen by God to perform psychiatric assessments on dead kids or does she, herself, have some kind of mental disorder?

The TV3 special runs tomorrow evening. Sadly, due to contractual reasons, people outside of Ireland will not be able to see this. That shouldn’t stop us from giving an opinion though. I mean, Casey can give opinions about dead kids she never once saw…so why can’t we?

I have chosen my words carefully in this blog post. Casey, you see, has a habit of setting her lawyers on people who disagree with her. Case in point being the mother of Shane Clancy, Leonie Fennell.

Back in 2011 Casey took umbrage to a post that appeared on the Leonie Fennell blog. Casey’s law team, Brophy Solicitor’s from Dublin, sent Fennell a letter, the crux of which claiming that Casey had her reputation “destroyed or attacked” as a result of comments left on Fennell’s blog [Letter here]

Fennell replied to Casey’s solicitors who, in turn, wrote back to Fennell…

Dear Ms Fennell,

We refer to our letter to you dated 22nd June.

It is extremely disappointing that your reply to this letter consisted of you posting it on your blog along with the comment in bold “I will never be bullied, intimidated or silenced by Lundbeck or Professor Casey”.

We need to point out to you that when our client first came to us, we advised her that the comments you have now removed from your blog were seriously defamatory and that she would be quite entitled to issue legal proceedings against you. She did not wish to do so because she has enormous sympathy for the tragedy you have suffered.

You have removed the defamatory comments from your blog but you now accuse our client of bullying you and trying to silence you. This is despite the fact that we specifically stated that our client did not want you to remove your blog but only wanted you to remove the defamatory comments you made about her. What part of this constitutes bullying? What part of this constitutes an attempt to silence you? Are you saying that the simple fact that you received a solicitor’s letter asking you to remove certain defamatory comments which you subsequently removed, constitutes intimidation?

We must now insist that you remove this sentence from your blog as it is absolutely clear that our client is not trying to bully you or intimidate you or silence you. What she is trying to do is to protect her good name and she will not allow herself to be defamed again. We hope you will accept that the allegation that our client is a bully and that she is intimidating you and trying to silence you is both wrong and extremely damaging for her.

We have strongly advised our client that she should issue proceedings to prevent this repetitive defamation but once again our client has said that she does not wish to do so given the background to this case but she absolutely insists that you remove the defamatory comments that are appearing on the website at the moment and confirm that you will not repeat any defamation in the future.

Yours faithfully,BROPHY SOLICITORS

As an outsider looking in it looks to me like Casey will never accept that antidepressants can cause suicide, it also seems apparent, to me at least, that Casey’s beliefs about Shane Clancy’s state of mind on that fateful night back in 2009 had nothing to do with the medication he was taking, despite overwhelming evidence from drug-makers and drug regulators that oppose her belief.

So, I’m throwing out three questions for Casey and for readers of this blog.

1. Has Patricia Casey been chosen by God to perform miracles through him?

2. Can Patrica Casey prove that Shane Clancy had a psychiatric illness?

3. Does Patricia Casey have some sort of delusional disorder?

TV3’s “A Search for Justice – Death in Bray” will feature interviews with Jennifer Hannigan, Seb’s parents Nuala and Jay Creane, Seb’s brother Dylan and his girlfriend Laura Mackey as well as Shane Clancy’s mother Leonie Fennell.

Judging by the media reports and TV critics it looks as though the documentary may portray Shane Clancy as nothing but a murderer. This saddens me a great deal because research and personal experience [6 years on Seroxat] has shown me that these drugs can turn even the most gentle, placid of people into monsters.

My condolences are offered to all of those concerned in this tragic series of events.



Vincent Browne Special Tonight: TV3

A Search for Justice – Death in Bray

I have already expressed my opinion on the Shane Clancy murder/suicide and those views can be found here. No doubt much opinion and debate will follow after this documentary airs on TV3 tonight. In the meantime, some readers might be interested in this article by Maria Bradshaw, mother of Toran Henry. Like Shane, Toran also died by SSRI induced suicide. Maria is a fantastic patient advocate, she is extremely well informed, and she expresses her views on the subject of SSRI’s and the related issues very well.

Check out this recent post from Maria, from the Mad in America Blog:

I think Professor Patricia Casey has behaved unethically and brought the profession of psychiatry into disrepute in a statement she made in the media today diagnosing a man who died nearly five years ago as mentally ill.

This is my opinion. It is based on never having met Prof Casey, never having met anyone who knows her well, never having seen her contract with Lundbeck Pharmaceuticals or attended any of the paid services she has delivered for them. It is based on my not having expert knowledge of the Code of Ethics of the Irish College of psychiatry or seen any of Prof Casey’s notes in relation to diagnosing the dead. It could therefore be seen as an uninformed opinion by someone who thinks they have the right to comment because they have an MBA, have dealt with issues of conflicts of interest and business ethics in their work and has been influenced by those who consider they have been harmed by the Professor.

Professor Patricia Casey would no doubt be outraged by my assuming to voice an opinion about what motivates her actions and making an assessment of her behaviour. She would quite reasonably argue I have insufficient evidence on which to base my views and that as such they have little or no validity or value. I imagine she would argue that publishing my opinion is disrespectful and contributes nothing worthwhile to any discussion of the ethical practice of psychiatry.

Where her credibility has been challenged in the past, Prof Casey has generally issued a solicitors letter requiring any published criticism be removed and the writer desist from publishing further criticism of her. I assume that should I question her motives and suggest they are influenced by her financial relationship with Lundbeck Pharmaceuticals, she would consider issuing me with the same.

On Monday night, Irish television is screening a documentary on the events leading to the deaths of Shane Clancy and Sebastian Creane. I have previously written a blog about Shane who, under the influence of Citalopram killed Sebastian and then himself. In today’s Sunday Times, Professor Patricia Casey is quoted as saying that she does not believe the drug played any role in Shane’s actions and that in her opinion he suffered from a psychiatric illness.

On what does Prof Casey base this opinion? Shane is dead and she did not ever meet him when he was alive. She has never spoken to his family, does not have access to his medical records and has not spoken to his doctor. By any analysis she has none of the requisite information on which to make a diagnosis. Not one shred. She has spoken to his ex-girlfriend and the family of the person he killed but despite the DSM-V lowering the diagnostic threshold for psychiatric disorders, even it does not allow for a diagnosis to be made solely on interviews with ex partners and the family of those the patient has harmed.

A recent study on the validity of psychological autopsy studies  –post mortem psychiatric assessments – concluded that “as a diagnostic tool psychological autopsies should now be abandoned.” Conducting a mental state assessment on a dead person is problematic for a variety of reasons including whether it is really possible to assign psychiatric diagnoses to someone who is dead by interviewing someone else given that the majority of questions on which a diagnosis is based cannot be reliably answered by anyone other than the deceased, and cannot therefore lead to valid conclusions. I have written about this study here.

Shane’s medical file records his experiencing adverse effects from the drug Citalopram. It does not record any diagnosis of a mental disorder. His file records the information gathered by a doctor who actually sat in the same room as Shane.

Professor Casey’s offer to provide expert evidence at Shane’s inquest was declined by the Coroner. Professor David Healy who did provide expert testimony had access to Shane’s family and his medical records. He is both a psychiatrist and a psychopharmacologist.  He is an acknowledged expert in the area of psychiatric drug induced suicide and homicide having conducted research on these issues and provided expert testimony in numerous homicide trials. He is the founder and CEO of a global pharmacovigilance organisation specializing in assessing causal relationships between drugs and adverse reactions. For these reasons, he was selected over Patricia Casey to provide evidence at the inquest examining the circumstances leading to Shane and Sebastian’s deaths. The Coroner’s decision in this respect should not be difficult to understand.

Despite having far more information than Professor Casey, Professor Healy did not presume to conduct a psychological autopsy on Shane. Rather he provided an expert opinion, using good science, on the causal link between Citalopram and Shane’s killing of someone else and himself. He is an expert in making such assessments. Professor Casey is not. Prof Healy provides evidence to support his assessment of the causal relationship between the drug and Shane’s actions. Professor Casey does not provide evidence to support her diagnosing of Shane as psychiatrically ill almost five years after his death.

Psychiatry is the one field of ‘medicine’ that has spawned a huge international survivors movement peopled by those who have suffered psychiatric abuse. The practice of conducting psychological autopsies is in my view another form of psychiatric abuse. Those of us whose children have died as a result of an acknowledged adverse reaction to psychiatric drugs are standing up for our rights –  and theirs – not to be stigmatized with psychiatric labels following their deaths. We believe that psychological autopsies are unscientific and unethical. We know they are disrespectful and cause pain to families.

We demand that psychiatrists like Professor Casey cease and desist from this practice forthwith and we ask that the psychiatric survivors movement support the right of those who did not survive to cease being hounded and abused by psychiatry as they lie in their graves