This is the sentence of the Audiencia de Madrid that has outraged psychiatrists

• Report Towards precision psychiatry: the new drugs that are transforming depression and schizophrenia

They won the trial in the Court of First Instance number 59 of Madrid. In a judgment dated November 2021, the Madrid court admitted the lawsuit of the Spanish Society of Psychiatry (SEP) against the Citizens Commission on Human Rights and its counterpart in Spain the Citizen Commission on Human Rights of Spain, non-profit organizations founded by the Church of Scientology and psychiatrist Thomas Szasz.

Then, the justice recognized that the organizations linked to

the Church to which Tom Cruise belongs were committing "illegitimate interference" and

with the content of the publications on their websites. He ordered the removal of these contents and the physical copies of that information. Ordering the two defendants to pay the costs.

In addition, the psychiatrists of the SEP -

- in their judicial complaint they stressed that the Citizen Commission on Human Rights of Spain was declared an association of public utility in 2009 and is financially and legally independent of the

What did those information published on the websites say and say: www.cchr.org.es and www.ccdh.es?

Take note: they called psychiatrists "criminals, sex offenders,

, responsible for the erosion of education and justice,

,

, fraudulent practitioners...". And the string of disqualifications for which the SEP sued these companies continues.

But the sentence of instance was appealed by the societies of the Church of Scientology and, in this case, the Provincial Civil Court of Madrid has revoked the ruling, with a sentence in which

. That is, it agrees with the societies of Scientology.

Of course, they admit that the

Against these medical professionals are

. Specifically, the judgment of the Audiencia de Madrid analyzes seven pieces of information that are those that would not have "expired". That is, those that between the date of its publication and the demand of the SEP

.

The Hearing judges one by one the seven pieces of information where psychiatrists and their work are harshly questioned, weighing the two fundamental rights in conflict:

In the final judgment of each of these pieces of information

However, in the words used by the court to justify its decision, one can understand the indignation that this sentence has generated in psychiatric professionals. These are the information that are reviewed in the judgment:

First: The Psychopath

The magistrates highlight the statements that say: "Psychiatry is a pseudoscience, which fails to cure mental illnesses and that with its treatments, often imposed without the will of the interested parties, seriously harms people,

".

But they clarify that

of the defendant associations. And these theories are "perfectly known to all psychiatrists" and "

the honor of professionals." In any case, they add that these statements "would be protected by the right to freedom of expression."

Second: Neither pharmaceutical nor doctors

In this content of the aforementioned websites, psychiatrists are "

.

The information reads: "

They could not have sold anything mind-altering without the creation and approval of these mental disorders and illnesses by psychiatrists..."

Given this evidence, the magistrates warn that "some of the phrases or expressions that are indicated as offensive could imply that in the conduct of psychiatrists

about the curative and therapeutic purpose, but we do not believe that we can accept that the right to honor should prevail when confronted with the right to freedom of expression in the field of health."

So, point out the magistrates of the Audiencia de Madrid, "although we can admit that in the report

We maintain the primacy of freedom of expression, as they appear as a way to reinforce criticism and are linked to the protected objective of freedom of expression."

Third: Psychiatry, a History of Failure

Among the pearls that this third content collects it is said that "psychiatrists continue to resort to various methods in which force is applied in order to overwhelm individuals physically and mentally and that Psychiatry destroys lives". They assure that these professionals have

. And they are described as "clumsy and second-class."

At this point, the article addresses "forced and involuntary internment", on which the court reasons "that they continue to be practiced" and this is something that "does not admit discussion".

Nor here do the magistrates see an "illegitimate interference in the right to honor of the members of the SEP." Although, the judgment admits that in the article analyzed "it is true that it seems to be affirmed

regarding patients about the curative purpose, but this is part of the theories that make a general criticism of psychiatry, which they qualify as a system of social control, a criticism that should not surprise the members of the SEP.

Fourth: the world of drugs

Within this fourth article, these phrases are highlighted as especially offensive and that they should be subject to protection, such as the statement that psychiatrists

. In this article they again criticize "the work of psychiatrists in denying them authority and the effectiveness of their treatments and for the use of drugs to treat all kinds of so-called mental disorders."

The judgment of this point by the court is maintained, although the recognition of the magistrates of the harshness of the terms used against these professionals is also striking. The ruling says that although "perhaps using some harsh and acidic terms", in the end

, in the opinion of the author of the publication, produce the drugs". So they reiterate that "the collision between fundamental rights must lean towards freedom of expression."

And so on until Article Seven

The other three contents that are denounced are a letter to primary care doctors, another to medical students and an article written by lawyer Luis de Miguel Ortega, entitled

. The documents insist on the same ideas, which are summarized in denying the scientific evidence of psychiatry and that medication never cures the disease or disorder. They consider that

".

The final conclusion of the Hearing comes to tell the Spanish Society of Psychiatry something like what are they surprised about? In the end, the statements that these organizations have on their websites are "

and which we believe are perfectly known to the members of the plaintiff association."

On the most acidic and vexatious expressions against psychiatrists, which the magistrates admit exist in these articles, they respond that "they are directly linked to the legitimate object that could be protected by freedom of expression." I mean

.

With the reading of the sentence, the indignation of psychiatrists has grown. However, from the Spanish Society of Psychiatry and Mental Health (SEPSM), former SEP, have responded to this newspaper that they have presented a

and that, therefore, as it is an open judicial process, they do not want to make further statements.