I certainly have no medical expertise, but somehow I know that dermatologists won't prescribe a certain acne medication to women unless they're on birth control.
Perhaps that's also true of one or more of the medications Britney is taking, and a judge has ordered her to take that medication. On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 1:31 PM PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 <takingupspace...@gmail.com> > 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 <pga...@gmail.com> 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 <pga...@gmail.com> 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 <pga...@gmail.com> 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. <drunkbastar...@gmail.com> >>>>> 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 <pga...@gmail.com> 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 <pga...@gmail.com> 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 <pga...@gmail.com> 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 <twol...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 10:58 AM Kevin M. < >>>>>>>>>> drunkbastar...@gmail.com> 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 tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>>> 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 tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> 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 tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYJJZoQ5kc%2BSh6stK7OJvgaaZJAkyK0JWDAu_Oh1sg0sWA%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYJJZoQ5kc%2BSh6stK7OJvgaaZJAkyK0JWDAu_Oh1sg0sWA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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 tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CA%2B_fQPxfhnQdzWqgGNtb6Yqp5Qb29rFt%3DMnQzwQJw4eZ%3D-n3Fw%40mail.gmail.com.
