Was Sheila Sedated?

Started by Erik Narramore, January 27, 2022, 09:00:14 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Erik Narramore

The pro-guilt camp assert Sheila was sedated and refer to page 3 of Dr. Ferguson's statement of 18th. September 1985.

I am not a psychiatrist or a pharmacologist, but I do NOT accept Dr. Ferguson's opinion on the point.  I think he is likely to be wrong when he says that recreational drugs can have no impact on the effect of anti-psychotics.

It is important to recognise that a psychiatrist is not an expert on psycho-pharmacology and does not necessarily have anything more than a working knowledge of how drugs work.  I think Dr. Ferguson's view in that paragraph is obviously flawed and wrong and I think it would be easy to show this.

Indeed, I see that in sheet 4 of his own statement of 8th. August 1985, Dr. Ferguson clearly states that the use of illicit drugs would exacerbate Sheila's psychosis, which is inconsistent with his later claim.

I find that quite suspicious, actually.  The first claim seems right.  The second claim, made after Jeremy became a suspect, seems wrong but convenient for the police.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

Intellectual fallacy: Argument from authority.  Having a title does not in and of itself mean you are correct.

However, an argument from authority is not always fallacious.  It would not be a fallacy to rely on Dr. Ferguson if it could be shown that Dr. Ferguson had relevant expertise, and that has not been shown.  Psychiatry is a very learned profession, but it only implies a working knowledge of the impact of anti-psychotics.  Psychiatrists are not pharmacologists.  Moreover, the view of a clinical psychiatrist might be clouded by loyalty to a patient - even though they are professionals, psychiatrists are still human like the rest of us.

Thus, in that statement of his, Dr. Ferguson advances a view outside his strict expertise.  You're simply relying on his title and you're ignoring the inconsistency in his evidence.

It's also noted that Dr. Ferguson only makes a general comment on the effect of cannabis on Haloperidol, he fails to mention its effect on Sheila's use of Haloperidol, which is not really the same question.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams