Bloody shame

[Abby Normal]

[QUOTE=Suzi;184447]Breaking news Poor Amy Winehouse has been found dead at her North London home today at 4.00pm
Bless Her...dear Amy xx[/QUOTE

The artist feels passions sharper edge
and shuns the middle for the shining ledge

The most brilliant flames burn out fast and first
for no worldly fuels quench the comets thirst

And brief may be the arc of the arrow unbound
but forever it echoes a most wondrous sound

[Ally]

One incident:

http://news.bostonherald.com/track/star_tracks/view/20091224amy_winehouse_charged_in_assault/srvc=home&position=recent

and another:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1159944/Amy-Winehouse-charged-assault-punching-fan-asked-photograph.html

and another:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/bizarre/article1089655.ece

So let's see we have a groin kick, a punch in the face and headbutting some random dude trying to hail her a cab. What a darling!

[TomTomKent]

Although this is a tragedy, as any untimely death is, she lost a lot of my sympathy by point blank refusing the help offered to her, then glamourising the refusal in song.

But, as with any other addict, I doubt she was capable of thinking straight. It is always sad to see priorities skewer under addiction, be you a famous singer or just another stoner.

[Errata]

That's not an excuse for alcohol and drug abuse but maybe an explanation as to why the number of severe cases is higher in the music and movie/show business than anywhere else.

Regards,

Boris

Personally I'm beginning to think that kids and parents should be required to pass a number of psychological evaluations in order to work in show business.

[bolo]

Hi Ally,

I find the blame game so amusing. The press is to blame, the parents are to blame, all of society is to blame. She chose to be famous. If she didn't like those mean old photographers charting her every move, she could have taken a clerk position at Harrods. She didn't seem to have a problem with the full warpaint. Her parents were not responsible for her decisions. And you are wrong that it wasn't her parents who put her in rehab. Her father moved in with her at one point, he attempted to have her committed at one point. Her parents are not responsible for her. The press wasn't responsible for her decisions. No, there's only one person to blame and that's the crackhead who chose to smoke crack the first time, or shoot up the first time, or drink themselves into a blind stupor.

She made her choices and she lived them. She is one hundred percent responsible for the mess she made of her life.

I know a thing or two about the music biz and can tell you that most of the time you can't chose fame but fame chooses you. There comes a point in the career of some musicians where things gain momentum by themselves, sometimes you don't even have the choice of quitting, at least not if you want to avoid lawsuits or severe financial consequences for breaking a deal with a record company. Fame/the music biz is a maelstrom.

Most people you come in contact with as a more or less famous musician are no well-meaning music lovers, they only care for themselves and the money they make. If this would mean selling their own grandmothers, they'd do it in a heartbeat if the gain was high enough. False friends, shady consultants, money-grubbing yes-men - the biz has them all, and not all artists are strong enough to resist them.

That's not an excuse for alcohol and drug abuse but maybe an explanation as to why the number of severe cases is higher in the music and movie/show business than anywhere else.

Regards,

Boris

[Natalie Severn]

You don't have to have seen her do it to know she was violent. She was charged several times with assault and "in her cups" is not an excuse for physically assaulting someone.

Ally,
Can you provide evidence of this because I have not been able to find it.

iI happen to agree with you wholeheartedly about the addict being responsible for their actions.The whole point I was making was that Amy did not have the
strength for a life in the footlights.She may have thought she did at fifteen or so but she didn't.
As for the drunken behaviour name me a pop star or singer apart from Cliff Richards who didn't get on the wrong side of the law over the possession of drugs.
Few of the supremely talented artists from any of the categories led blameless lives.Lucian Freud who has also just died ,cavorted with and painted in the same studio as Francis Bacon in the gangster run dens of Soho. Both were complete tearaways both hugely talented artists too and their goings on knocked Amy's pathetic antics into a cocked hat as far as outrageous behaviour is concerned.
And I could name you dozens more.So why pick on Amy?

[Ally]

I find the blame game so amusing. The press is to blame, the parents are to blame, all of society is to blame. She chose to be famous. If she didn't like those mean old photographers charting her every move, she could have taken a clerk position at Harrods. She didn't seem to have a problem with the full warpaint. Her parents were not responsible for her decisions. And you are wrong that it wasn't her parents who put her in rehab. Her father moved in with her at one point, he attempted to have her committed at one point. Her parents are not responsible for her. The press wasn't responsible for her decisions. No, there's only one person to blame and that's the crackhead who chose to smoke crack the first time, or shoot up the first time, or drink themselves into a blind stupor.

She made her choices and she lived them. She is one hundred percent responsible for the mess she made of her life.

[Natalie Severn]

You don't have to have seen her do it to know she was violent. She was charged several times with assault and "in her cups" is not an excuse for physically assaulting someone.

Yes, the press have made the very most of any opportunity they get to picture celebrities who are drunk and disorderly .They have on numerous occasions pictured Prince William and Prince Harry 'in their cups' falling into taxis and around on pavements . Prince Harry also took a flying shot at a press photographer on one of these occasions. Living in the public eye with the press waiting like vultures to see their target mess up is par for the course it appears.In my view such invasiveness is a form of violent abuse/assault.

[Errata]

And if his father was diagnosed diabetic AFTER the condition had already progressed to the point that it was interfering with his rational cognitive abilities, that's fine, but if the father knew all along and chose not to do anything, then the son is a rat bastard who is interfering with free will and is a meddlesome obnoxious intrusive busybody who believes HIS opinions count more than his father's do when it comes to his father's own life, and I hope when the father recovers sufficiently, he gets a good lawyer, which I am sure he didnt have the first time, and sues the son for emotional trauma and cuts off all contact.

Actually his son got conservatorship after his father lost his right foot and his left leg below the knee. He was already paying for his father's care, and housing his father under the condition that he treat his diabetes. Which he didn't do, and after the medical bills caused them to lose the family business, he decided that if the man was going to live with him then he was going to damn well take his shots. He could have chosen to throw his dad out, but anyone who chooses to be amputated to death over the course of a decade because he doesn't like to look at needles is probably not right in the head. I mean, you would think he would realize that amputations require bigger and nastier needles. So after a year and two amputations, his dad is fine and giving himself shots while not looking at the needle, a trick he could have learned at the beginning if he wasn't so hell bent on being a pain in the ass.

They did try. Do you remember her peppy little Rehab anthem? Where she defiantly declared her daddy was trying to make her go and she won't ..no, no no? Even then, she went to Rehab several times. They did try. At some point, you accept that some people don't want to be saved, and quit wasting your own life trying to redeem people who aren't interested in your efforts. They have the right to toss their lives down the toilet if they want to.

How long precisely is someone required to give up living their own life to constantly protect her from the consequences of her own choices? How long are you obligated to throw money, time and effort into saving someone who doesn't want to be saved?

Firstly, her label tried to get her in rehab, not her parents. And I understand that you can't make someone live longer than they want to. I accept that she didn't want to be saved. That's fine. I mean, it's a shame she never had the chance to experience relief from a mood disorder, and make a decision based on that, but whatever. And if she had only been a danger to herself that would be fine. But she was a danger to others, and that's not okay. She was incredibly lucky that she was the only person she killed. You don't get to engage in behavior that puts other people at risk, just like you don't get to not treat tuberculosis. Her refusal to treat her illness put others in danger, and that's exactly why conservatorship laws exist. To minimize the damage of a destructive individual. Her parents chose not to do that. And that's fine as long as she's the only one dead, but they couldn't possibly know that she wasn't going to kill someone else. So they're lucky she dropped dead instead of driving a car into a school or some such. It's irresponsible to let someone hurt others when you have the power to prevent it. And they can grieve, and that's fine, I'm just sick of people saying that they did everything they could. They didn't. They did everything they chose to do. Rightly or wrongly. But there is a difference. Her family had the right to give up on her. But then you reap what you sow, so I don't feel bad for them.

[Ally]

.

Taking someone to the hospital against their will has never been and will never be kidnapping. Taking someone to the police against their will also isn't.

You are wrong. It is in fact kidnapping and you can go to jail. If you decide your brother needs treatment for cancer and he isn't getting it and you throw him in your car, and force him to go, he can have you arrested. If you decide your neighbor is a crook and you "force" him to go to the police station, whether you are right or wrong, you can still be convicted of kidnapping. You don't have the right to force someone else to accompany you. Unless a person is actively engaged in a crime, you don't have the right to detain them and you can be charged.

A hospital can keep you for 72 hours with no legal repercussions, if they can't come up with anything in that amount of time, they have to let you go, but if they do find something they get you committed by the courts and they can keep you until either you get better or get better lawyers.

A hospital can only detain you with cause. And your busybody sister saying you ought to get your cancer treated against your wishes isn't cause. If you are screaming abuse and hurling objects, that might be cause, but some meddlesome interfering git who thinks they have the right to control your life because they don't agree with your choices isn't cause.

A hospital, a doctor, or a family member can petition the courts the have you declared incompetent, at which point your life decisions such as how you live, whether you treat yourself, or even how you spend your money are put into other people's hands. Britney Spears for example.

No duh. But they had cause.

I know someone who has conservatorship over his father because his Dad was not treating his diabetes at all. He successfully argued to the courts that his dad's diabetic high was rendering him incapable of making his own medical decisions.

And if his father was diagnosed diabetic AFTER the condition had already progressed to the point that it was interfering with his rational cognitive abilities, that's fine, but if the father knew all along and chose not to do anything, then the son is a rat bastard who is interfering with free will and is a meddlesome obnoxious intrusive busybody who believes HIS opinions count more than his father's do when it comes to his father's own life, and I hope when the father recovers sufficiently, he gets a good lawyer, which I am sure he didnt have the first time, and sues the son for emotional trauma and cuts off all contact.

Every schizophrenic I have ever known has willingly entered into a court ruled conservatorship so they don't end up on the streets.

Notice the word "willingly"?

Even I have a limited one that allows me to stay on my father's insurance. The options exist for people like Amy Winehouse. All anyone had to do was try. And you may argue that they shouldn't, but that doesn't mean they couldn't.

They did try. Do you remember her peppy little Rehab anthem? Where she defiantly declared her daddy was trying to make her go and she won't ..no, no no? Even then, she went to Rehab several times. They did try. At some point, you accept that some people don't want to be saved, and quit wasting your own life trying to redeem people who aren't interested in your efforts. They have the right to toss their lives down the toilet if they want to.

How long precisely is someone required to give up living their own life to constantly protect her from the consequences of her own choices? How long are you obligated to throw money, time and effort into saving someone who doesn't want to be saved?

[Errata]

Where do you live Errata? You constantly make statements about legalities that I have never heard of and are illegal in the United States. I know plenty of people who have chosen to deny treatment for all kinds of issues, and unless it's a public health crisis, no one has ever declared them incompetent or tried to take away their right to make their own choices.

I was not speaking in terms of legality, although laws do exist that pertain to these very issues. It's that as friends and family we do not allow our loved ones to refuse care for serious conditions. (I know not you. You don't care and even if you did you wouldn't say anything) But for the most part we absolutely bully people into getting medical care whether they want it or not, because we want them to have it.

Taking someone to the hospital against their will has never been and will never be kidnapping. Taking someone to the police against their will also isn't. Nor is having someone committed against their will. Hospitals have lawyers who do nothing but hang around courthouses waiting in case they need to file commitment papers. A hospital can keep you for 72 hours with no legal repercussions, if they can't come up with anything in that amount of time, they have to let you go, but if they do find something they get you committed by the courts and they can keep you until either you get better or get better lawyers. A hospital, a doctor, or a family member can petition the courts the have you declared incompetent, at which point your life decisions such as how you live, whether you treat yourself, or even how you spend your money are put into other people's hands. Britney Spears for example. It can even be a nasty consequence of bankruptcy litigation. But the laws can be used for people who are screwing themselves over, so for people who are going to kill people if they don't get treatment I would think the courts would trip over themselves getting it done.

I know someone who has conservatorship over his father because his Dad was not treating his diabetes at all. He successfully argued to the courts that his dad's diabetic high was rendering him incapable of making his own medical decisions. Every schizophrenic I have ever known has willingly entered into a court ruled conservatorship so they don't end up on the streets. Even I have a limited one that allows me to stay on my father's insurance. The options exist for people like Amy Winehouse. All anyone had to do was try. And you may argue that they shouldn't, but that doesn't mean they couldn't.

[Ally]

You don't have to have seen her do it to know she was violent. She was charged several times with assault and "in her cups" is not an excuse for physically assaulting someone.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Ally,
I have seen interviews with her father and felt uncomfortable about his hold on her.Thats all.I am sure he adored her and she him but whether they were good for one another I doubt somehow.
As far as her being violent and nasty as an addict -well in her cups she probably was but I haven't seen her in action in her cups . What I have seen are interviews with people who knew her and found her a kind rather shy person underneath.I liked her anyway and thought she was a fantastic singer.
Best,
Norma

[Ally]

Where do you live Errata? You constantly make statements about legalities that I have never heard of and are illegal in the United States. I know plenty of people who have chosen to deny treatment for all kinds of issues, and unless it's a public health crisis, no one has ever declared them incompetent or tried to take away their right to make their own choices. The only issue I know where this is even an issue is with minor children, but grown adults are considered fully allowed to make their own decisions, including those involving non-treatment. And if you try to take someone anywhere against their will, it's called kidnapping and it's illegal. You don't get declared incompetent simply for refusing treatment. If you say Jesus is going to come down, lay hands on you and save you, then yes, you might be declared incompetent, because clearly you would be, but the issue is not that you are refusing treatment, it's that you are deluded.

There is absolutely no "moral outrage" involved in her killing herself. People have the right to kill themselves if they want. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that she was in any way mentally ill--she was an addict and a violent and nasty one at that. She was also a grown adult and responsible for herself. No one is obligated to assume responsibility for your life. No one owes you anything.

P.S To Natalie--and as for who pushed her and "sent her to stage school" ...her mother pulled her out of theatre school when a teacher said she was too distracted there and wouldn't end up doing well. So she wasn't pushed. She made her own choices as an adult to pursue music. Lots of kids attend theatre and theatrical schools if they have talent. That doesn't mean they are being forced into it against their will.

[Errata]

You can't blame her dad. I'm sure he did everything he could but, as Adam has pointed out, the conquest of addiction must come from a sincere determination on the part of the addict.

People who become addicts while self-medicating a mental illness cannot free themselves from an addiction until they treat the mental illness. The same as you cannot cure the symptoms of an infection until you treat the actual infection. People get treated against their will for mental illness all the time. People get committed against their will all the time. The idea being that clearly their mental illness is interfering with their ability to remain alive. And I have no idea why everyone seemed to think that either a: that scraping away at the gangrene of her addiction meant that she didn't need penicillin for the infection, or b: that the embarrassment and anger she would have felt at being committed was going to be worse than her death.

What if she hadn't died? What if she had plowed her car into a schoolyard fence? What if she had a psychotic break and killed her boyfriend? What if she decided on suicide by cop and took out a couple of police officers? These things happen, and we are much less forgiving about "sincere desire" in an addict. We think that someone should have stopped the people who kill others. And someone should have. If you see someone stumbling out of a bar and getting behind the wheel, do you let them go because they obviously don't have the desire to change? Or do you take their keys away because screw what they want, they could kill somebody? Amy Winehouse could have killed somebody. Through her addiction, through her mental illness, through the sheer exhaustion of trying to get through her days. And in the end she only killed herself, but that doesn't make it okay. The same amount of moral outrage should be applied to her death as would be applied to her causing someone else's death. She was a danger to herself and others, and evidently no one did anything about it.