That may or may not be the best medical advice; we have lots of psychiatric pts who get pregnant, and there are ways around that, including taking a 9 month drug holiday. But regardless of whether it may not be a good idea for her to get pregnant, it is certainly her decision to make. I can’t imagine any court approving an order to force her not to get pregnant, based on psychiatric symptoms or medication.
On Sun, 27 Jun 2021 at 10:07 AM Melissa P <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, essentially she's already supporting Federline's 6 children, only > two of which are hers. > > But what makes most sense to me is that she shouldn't get pregnant because > of the psychotropic medications she's probably taking, which could harm > unborn children. > > On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 11:15 AM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > >> And just in the interest of a complete historical record, here is a >> relevant NYT piece from a few days ago expanding in what Spears claim that >> she is somehow being prevented from removing her IUD is so shocking. >> >> This claim is shocking enough that I continue to lean towards not >> believing it is literally true. If it is true, then this alone would >> justify all the fan site histrionics. >> >> But what I found particularly interesting is the speculation here as to >> why Jamie Spears might be trying to prevent his daughter from getting >> pregnant: he may be trying to prevent her BF and the likely father of any >> baby from gaining a claim to control some or all of Brittany’s assets. This >> is interesting because this worry about Brittany being vulnerable to “undue >> influence” seems to be at the heart of the justification for the PC in the >> first place. >> >> Again, it strikes me as unbelievable that in 21st century California any >> court would stand for forced sterilization (even a temporary kind); more >> likely Jamie is making something else Brittany wants contingent on her >> having IUD in place (perhaps, in conjunction with their father, who would >> have a similar self-interest, access to her children). >> >> >> https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/24/health/britney-spears-forced-IUD.html?referringSource=articleShare >> >> >> >> On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 at 10:19 AM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> LAT has a good analysis article this morning. Their conservation expert >>> (Leslie >>> Salzman, a clinical professor of law at the Cardozo School of Law) >>> articulates several of the concerns I have been focusing on. The story also >>> points out how cozy the relations are between the different players in this >>> process, and there really isn’t an independent, objective advocate for the >>> conservatee. But they still don’t explain how a psychiatric dx qualifies >>> someone for this kind of Conservatorship. >>> >>> I used to do forensic evaluations for the state of California >>> (Competency to Stand Trial and Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity). One of >>> the most common things we would say in our reports is something like: “Yes, >>> this subject does have a mental illness, but no, it does not make them >>> incompetent to stand trial.” I suspect I would say something similar about >>> Spears if I were evaluating her, unless there is some huge deficit or >>> pathology that has just not come out publicly. >>> >>> “According to the New York Times, which reviewed an internal 2016 >>> report, Spears told her probate investigator that the conservatorship was >>> oppressive and that she wanted out. The investigator said it should >>> continue because of her “complex finances, susceptibility to undue >>> influence and ‘intermittent’ drug issues, yet called for ‘a pathway to >>> independence and the eventual termination of the conservatorship.’ >>> >>> Salzman was troubled by several aspects of the proceedings from the >>> beginning. One, the judge didn’t allow Spears to hire her own attorney. >>> Two, her court-appointed attorney, according to Spears’ testimony >>> Wednesday, never told her that she could file a petition to terminate the >>> conservancy. And three, against Spears’ objections, the judge did not >>> appoint a neutral conservator but selected her father, with whom she was >>> known to have a rocky relationship.” >>> >>> >>> https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-06-26/britney-spears-conservatorship-claims-raise-serious-concerns >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 8:28 AM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Under California law a conservatorship justified for a “person who is >>>> unable to provide properly for his or her personal needs for physical >>>> health, food, clothing, or shelter,” or for someone who is >>>> “substantially unable to manage his or her own financial resources or >>>> resist fraud or undue influence.” >>>> >>>> https://apnews.com/article/6a484c43ce6c5ff1e73af0dfd97d948a >>>> >>>> The standard Kevin invokes is for temporary involuntary hospitalization >>>> (in California often referred to as a 5150). >>>> >>>> Spears is not being conserved because of tabloid rumors or raunchy >>>> behavior. She is being conserved because a Court found that she can not be >>>> trusted to care for herself. Almost always this is done because an older >>>> person is in full on Alzheimer’s, or a younger person suffered serious >>>> brain damage, or something else from which folks don’t recover. In Spears >>>> case it appears to be because of a psychiatric disorder, probably bipolar, >>>> which is unusual. It is possible she did something to injure her brain >>>> (trauma or drugs) that we don’t know about. >>>> >>>> The AP article says the Conservatorship specifically makes medical >>>> decisions for her, which I guess explains the IUD, but that still is the >>>> most shocking example of how unusual this is to me. >>>> >>>> The article also points out what may be obvious but is worth keeping in >>>> mind, which is that it is almost impossible that the court will simply >>>> grant her request to be released from Conservatorship. Legally. One someone >>>> is conserved, the burden of proof shifts to them to demonstrate that they >>>> are competent; the state does not have to continue to show that they are >>>> incompetent. This is why, even though one predicate for her being conserved >>>> is bipolar disorder, in my view it almost certainly can not be the only >>>> reason. I can’t think of a single purely psychiatric (as opposed to clearly >>>> neurological) condition that could be assumed to be so unchangingly active >>>> and severe as to justify the presumption a person is perpetually >>>> incompetent (including something like schizophrenia). >>>> >>>> This is not to say she can never be released from the Conservatorship, >>>> but it means it will take more than her outrage (or public outrage) to do >>>> it. She will need proper medical judgement that whatever previous condition >>>> led her to be incompetent is now clearly resolved. >>>> >>>> One more thing; if I wanted to fan the conspiracy flames, I would focus >>>> on the allegation she made yesterday that her lawyer had never told her >>>> over all these years that she could or should formally request to have the >>>> Conservatorship removed. This raises the question of whose interest the >>>> lawyer is acting in. >>>> >>>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 at 8:50 PM Kevin M. <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> To reiterate my prior comments, I only had brief encounters with her >>>>> when I worked in the industry. While she was odd, so are most in the >>>>> industry, including me. What the public saw most certainly is not “the >>>>> real >>>>> Britney,” but — again — that’s indicative of Hollywood. Your experience is >>>>> good at framing the key issues, but ultimately we can only speculate. The >>>>> public argument for keeping her in someone else’s care is that she is >>>>> incapable of making sane, sober life choices… see previous sentence about >>>>> being indicative of Hollywood. To me, the only reason to legally deny her >>>>> access to what she has earned (for better or worse) is that she is a >>>>> danger >>>>> to herself or others. She has publicly abused substances, but that alone >>>>> doesn’t seem to be a deal breaker in re sanity. My conclusion therefore is >>>>> there is a giant chunk of the puzzle which we are not aware. I don’t think >>>>> we are entitled to be aware, but that’s a different argument. >>>>> >>>>> Regarding her dad being in charge of her… yeah, that needs to be >>>>> changed. That’s ten levels of wrong, morally and ethically. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 6:11 PM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> BS had another hearing today, and for first time formally requested >>>>>> to have conservatorship terminated. >>>>>> >>>>>> Brief quote: >>>>>> >>>>>> “ I feel ganged up on, I feel bullied and I feel left out and >>>>>> alone," Spears said. "And I'm tired of feeling alone." >>>>>> >>>>>> She detailed parts of her life that had been unknown. She said that >>>>>> she was being exploited and that she can't sleep, is depressed and cries >>>>>> every day. She stated that she wants another baby but is forced to keep >>>>>> an >>>>>> IUD in place. >>>>>> >>>>>> "All I want is to own my money and for this to end.” >>>>>> >>>>>> She asked that her opening statement be made in public, most of the >>>>>> rest that transpired was closed (as it ought to be). >>>>>> >>>>>> While the claims made by Spears have to be taken serious and >>>>>> investigated, they can not be assumed to be true, or complete, as they >>>>>> stand. Presumably she is in this situation due do a Dx psychiatric >>>>>> condition, and I can testify to the fact that for a number of reasons not >>>>>> everything people in that situation say can be assumed to be accurate. >>>>>> >>>>>> Several questions remain unanswered (as far as I can tell, I only >>>>>> read this story about today’s events): >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Why is she on a Probate Conservatorship (rare for a young >>>>>> person who obviously can take care of her basic ADLs)? >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. What harm is the court trying to protect Spears from? This is >>>>>> basically another way of asking Q1. Presumably part of the answer is >>>>>> damage >>>>>> to her large estate, and future earning potential, but I have to think >>>>>> there is more than just financial interest at play here. I continue to >>>>>> suspect that A) She is seen as being unduly influenced by a potentially >>>>>> unreliable source and B) there is concern that the physical, >>>>>> psychological >>>>>> and financial well being of her children is threatened. >>>>>> >>>>>> 3. Why does the Court continue to allow her father to be part of >>>>>> the Conservatorship, given his questionable history with her and conflict >>>>>> of interest? There are objective, professional Conservators who could do >>>>>> this. >>>>>> >>>>>> 4. Is it really possible for a Conservator to require the use >>>>>> of an IUD? I suspect this is a question that does not come up very often, >>>>>> as the large majority of people under PC are past child bearing age, or >>>>>> are >>>>>> men. I am trying to think of a justification for this requirement. I >>>>>> recently had a patient whose OB-GYN had documented in clear terms that >>>>>> her >>>>>> postpartum depression and psychosis was so bad, increasingly, with >>>>>> first 4 >>>>>> pregnancies that under no circumstances should she get pregnant again (I >>>>>> was seeing her because she was pregnant again). I guess if that pt has >>>>>> been >>>>>> conserved she could have been forced to have an IUD inserted, though for >>>>>> an >>>>>> outpatient it seems like a difficult requirement to enforce. It seems >>>>>> more >>>>>> likely to me that somehow her father was able to use some financial >>>>>> leverage to get her to agree to not getting pregnant again (I can’t >>>>>> really >>>>>> believe that any conservator could make a decision specifically about an >>>>>> IUD – even very disturbed women would have the right to select their own >>>>>> contraceptive method, or at least have it made for them by their >>>>>> physician). >>>>>> The Rolling Stone story confirms that she has been on Lithium, which >>>>>> almost certainly confirms that she has been diagnosed with Bipolar >>>>>> Disorder, which is consistent with my hypothesis about her. I have >>>>>> treated >>>>>> hundreds of pts with this disorder, and never seen one on PC - but again, >>>>>> none of them had $50 Million. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/britney-spears-jamie-conservatorship-hearing-1186966/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 11:15 PM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Okay, I watched the “Framing Britney Spears” “documentary” on Hulu. >>>>>>> Yikes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. How did the NYT let its name be attached to this? It looks and >>>>>>> smells more like TMZ. It is little more than a summary of what has been >>>>>>> said and reported by people on social media, with little or no actual >>>>>>> independent reporting from the NYT. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. One of the most basic things missing is an explanation of what it >>>>>>> means to be on conservatorship in CA (there are several different kinds) >>>>>>> and what a judge had to have found to be true to put her on one. I am >>>>>>> most >>>>>>> familiar with LPS Conservators, who do have the power to commit people >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> psychiatric hospitalization. It appears that Spears has a Probate (not >>>>>>> LPS) >>>>>>> Conservatorship, for both Person and Estate. These conservators (even >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> Person) can not hospitalize the conservatee against their will. So, if >>>>>>> Spears was hospitalized against her will, it would have had to have been >>>>>>> because doctors found her to be a danger to herself or others, or (much >>>>>>> less likely) gravely disabled. We know she was hospitalized on a 5150 >>>>>>> back >>>>>>> in the 2008 period, but I don’t think we know what the status was of the >>>>>>> most recent hospitalization. Her father could have coerced her into >>>>>>> accepting hospitalization, since he controls her finances and many >>>>>>> aspects >>>>>>> of her person, but again we don’t know (and again, the NYT offers no >>>>>>> original reporting about this). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3. There is always the possibility of gross corruption (the father >>>>>>> pays off the judges and others to rule in his favor), but to assume this >>>>>>> without evidence is the definition of a conspiracy theory. More likely >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> that, whatever else is going on, Spears suffers from a serious >>>>>>> psychiatric >>>>>>> disorder. I am surprised that for all the histrionic “Leave Brittany >>>>>>> Alone!” Type Fan groups cited in the Doc, there seemed to be little >>>>>>> recognition of or care about this basic fact by people who claim to love >>>>>>> her. The court has to be primarily concerned with the mental health and >>>>>>> well-being of Spears, and the fact she is still conserved suggests that >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> court has evidence that she continues to have significant problems. >>>>>>> Whatever else is going on, she likely continues to be a very disordered >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> unhappy person. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 4. While I am not as familiar with probate Conservatorship, what I >>>>>>> do know leaves me surprised and somewhat suspicious that it is being >>>>>>> used >>>>>>> in Spears case, at least for Person. What the documentary does not tell >>>>>>> us >>>>>>> is why the court settled on Conservatorship, when, as I understand it, >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> do so they have to first consider and reject several other less >>>>>>> restrictive >>>>>>> arrangements. I have never treated anyone as wealthy as Spears, but it >>>>>>> does >>>>>>> smell like this entire scheme was designed with the well-being of her >>>>>>> estate (and perhaps the financial interests of record and other >>>>>>> corporations) in mind, rather than of Spears herself. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 5. My guess is that at the heart of all this is the judgement that >>>>>>> Spears was found to be pathologically vulnerable to influence by >>>>>>> suspicious >>>>>>> people, like Sam Lutfi. This is alluded to in the documentary, but with >>>>>>> very little actual reporting. As suspicious as I am of her father, by >>>>>>> relying on tabloid and social media memes the documentary is probably >>>>>>> unfair to him. More likely the courts have repeatedly found that without >>>>>>> the Conservatorship, Spears would fall under the control of Lutfi and >>>>>>> people like him who would be more harmful to her than her father. If >>>>>>> something like this is true, I can see why the courts would be >>>>>>> reluctant to >>>>>>> eliminate the Conservatorship, or even to name someone as Conservator of >>>>>>> Spears own choosing. It is actually possible that the current >>>>>>> arrangement >>>>>>> gives Spears as much freedom as is consistent with her own well-being, >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> that of her children, by limiting the ability of unsavory influencers to >>>>>>> manipulate her to drain her resources and harm others. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The reason we know so little about this is that most of it is not >>>>>>> properly our business. The Courts are there to review the case and >>>>>>> protect >>>>>>> her interests, not Instagrammers. Still, with so much money at stake, it >>>>>>> may be appropriate for the press to ensure that the courts are acting >>>>>>> properly. I just wish the press in this case was doing a better job. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 2:48 PM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ok, sounds like maybe I will check out the doc. My take on her >>>>>>>> around that time was that she needed a conservator, but it should not >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> been her father, or anyone who stood to profit from commodifying her. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 1:00 PM Tom Wolper <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 10:58 AM Kevin M. <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yeah, yesterday Diane Sawyer trended because people suddenly >>>>>>>>>> decided her interview of Spears from nearly two decades ago was bad, >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> is a bit like people only just now realizing Geraldo is really bad >>>>>>>>>> at his >>>>>>>>>> job. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I miss Ferguson on late night. I understand why he got out when >>>>>>>>>> he did, but I still wish he’d have stayed through Trump. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I wanted to watch the Britney doc on Hulu before responding so I >>>>>>>>> could avoid hot takes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have taken to watching documentaries about bands from when I >>>>>>>>> grew up, usually on YouTube. There are two types: movie length >>>>>>>>> promotions >>>>>>>>> made for fans where the band is awesome, all their music is awesome, >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> they'll be beloved until the end of time. And then there are more >>>>>>>>> reflective documentaries, made a couple of decades after the band >>>>>>>>> broke up, >>>>>>>>> where the musicians, managers, record company executives, etc talk >>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>> the rise of the band, what life was like at the top, and why it fell >>>>>>>>> apart. >>>>>>>>> Those are the documentaries I watch. I'll even watch if it's about a >>>>>>>>> band >>>>>>>>> or an artist who was very popular but I didn't follow at the time. I >>>>>>>>> figure >>>>>>>>> I can put my biases aside and see if I missed out on any good music. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Britney documentary was not about her music. The frame is a >>>>>>>>> legal battle over conservatorship, a status she entered into in 2008. >>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>> first half of the doc is about her life up to 2008 and the second >>>>>>>>> half is >>>>>>>>> about the conservatorship, the legal situation, and a movement from >>>>>>>>> her >>>>>>>>> fans to end the conservatorship. The first half is tough to watch even >>>>>>>>> though it happened in recent enough memory. The tabloids saw dollar >>>>>>>>> signs >>>>>>>>> in covering her and they had no conscience about any damage they >>>>>>>>> might be >>>>>>>>> doing to her and certainly no restraint. And the attitude infiltrated >>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>> mainstream celebrity coverage like the Diane Sawyer interview. It >>>>>>>>> would be >>>>>>>>> at least as much of a relief for me to know that she gives up music >>>>>>>>> altogether and goes to live a quiet life somewhere raising her kids >>>>>>>>> (and >>>>>>>>> there's no sign of that happening) as hearing she is recording a new >>>>>>>>> album. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As for Craig Ferguson he brought his own vulnerability into his >>>>>>>>> monologues and the show and it was really refreshing to see him so >>>>>>>>> fearless >>>>>>>>> talking about his past. He had an empathy for his guests and I miss >>>>>>>>> that, >>>>>>>>> too. In the late stages of his show he burned out and stopped putting >>>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>>> effort into it. I really liked the show during his peak, but I'm glad >>>>>>>>> he >>>>>>>>> got out of it in time. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>>> Groups "TVorNotTV" group. >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>>> send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAJE-FiFFEGuM9THGVeGuW7-6Li0qjfWiJubzxUhz0MX_xDzvfQ%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAJE-FiFFEGuM9THGVeGuW7-6Li0qjfWiJubzxUhz0MX_xDzvfQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CA%2B_fQPwey900C%3DtVG2H7UDYjKVCh3ODRFAuSffc0NsdERLe3Gw%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CA%2B_fQPwey900C%3DtVG2H7UDYjKVCh3ODRFAuSffc0NsdERLe3Gw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- Sent from Gmail Mobile -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYJJZoQ5kc%2BSh6stK7OJvgaaZJAkyK0JWDAu_Oh1sg0sWA%40mail.gmail.com.
