It is gross really to see the Corrigan IPU patients staying inside day after day, week after week, and in some cases month after month. And it is still more alarming when Corrigan staff blithely and complacently point to the four times a day when a minority subset of patients (youthful patients) can go outside. (Roughly 25% to 50% of patients [depending on the patients on unit at a particular time) can access the outdoors because, for example, they do not suffer neither obesit], paranoia exacerbated in groups, social anxiety, catatonia, or dementia, and do not present fall risks). For the other patients (the majority [especially when weighted by length of stay]). they are inside constantly, and it is disgusting to see. Their skin can be as white as white-out. The outdoors breaks are valued by the employees, but the employees aren't able to extend the courtesy to their fellow humans. It is a case of domination of the medical professionals over the neurodiverse. Some Corrigan staff no doubt get off on this. Most would get off on it indirectly and subliminally. Maybe a few get off on it consciously and directly. On the other hand, there is also another factor at play: the way we can get used to things that are odious, simply because others aren't clamoring about it, and we simply stop paying attention. If you went to Corrigan IPU, you would be appalled by the majority of patients who never go outside. But I venture if you shunned it for a year or so, you would eventually get used to it. You would be able subconsciously to suppress how disgusting it is for these humans (who happen to be patients) to be tortured by not having a real substantive, right of access to the outside. How does this happen? Rousseau in his Confessions said it was human nature. “I have derived an important moral principle, perhaps the only one of any real practical use, which is that we should avoid situations that bring our duty into conflict with our interests … since I am certain that in such situations, … we will sooner or later weaken, without noticing it, and become unjust and wicked in deed without having ceased to be just and good in spirit” I first raised this issue with Corrigan in October 2024 to Larry Weiner who is the Director of Human Rights at Corrigan. He simply ignored me. Danielle Keogh, LICSW, actively resisted my efforts. I then decided to make a formal Human RIghts Complaint. I assumed this would get a response. However no one from Corrigan would even acknowledge they received it. I sent it to: Jose Afonso ("provider" where a "provider" is sometimes called a "prescriber". It is essentially someone who can prescribe, so it is a nurse practitioner, DO, etc.) Maxwell I. Mayer (provider) Larry Weiner and Jeanne Crespi, social worker. Nb: I have invited each of these people to come on to this podcast or contact me in writing to correct me where I am wrong. To work at Corrigan you need to develop the ability to shun. You shun recognition of how many patients don't get to go outside. You shun the nausea you probably had when you first saw this. You also learn, it seems, to shun other people, people such as me who are raising the issue. A social worker or mental-health counselor would in fact claim that such shunning constituted "self care" or "an adaptive coping mechanism." Until they correct me, I would attribute Afonso and Mayer's non-response to their occupational or characterological contrariness and sense of superiority. They are "providers." They also have a vested interest (which is subliminal [see Rousseau]) as they possess the big swinging dicks at Corrigan IPU, are used to being kowtowed to, and, on information and belief, seem to use the Corrigan IPU as the IPU for their personal (presumably middle-class, white) patients. (The nurses will hold a bed open when they know that one of the providers' patients will soon be needing a bed. On information and belief, they also keep their own patients there longer ceteris paribus. Also as the golden goose: Corrigan IPU apparently requires an MD be on call all the time in case of an admission. The upshot is that it is good to have one of them as a provider. From the perspective of their patients' families, keeping this small (16-bed) unit open is a godsend. It only starts to look sketchy when you think of the anonymous payers of taxes and insurance premia. Why did I send it to Jeanne Crespi? She is the interim "Person in Charge," meaning she is the person you are supposed to contact with a Human Rights Complaint. It was thus quite surprising to me that neither she nor Larry Weiner even acknowledged my Complaint, or were willing to indicate to me that my Complaint would be taken seriously. I mean: that is one of their official, professional duties, as the Human Rights Officer and Person in Charge. In each case I was specifically--and increasingly plaintively--asking that they person ...
