There are so many horrifying things going on in the world that picking something to write about is hard. One of the reasons I don't write about some of them is because I don't know what to say. This is not like that.
Here is a story which is hard to believe is real. This woman, Jewel Shuping, decided that her true identity was as a blind person. She eventually found a quack psychologist who was "willing to help her become blind." Notice the similarity to "helping" people to die, by the way. He deliberately blinded her over time, with her consent, by putting drain cleaner in her eyes. Now she's blind and, allegedly, happy.
She "consented," despite being obviously a person with a serious psychological problem whose ability to consent to such insanity should be ipso facto considered null. In one of the terminally non-judgemental news stories about this, she says,
“I really feel this is the way I was supposed to be born, that I should have been blind from birth,” Shuping said. “When there’s nobody around you who feels the same way, you start to think that you’re crazy. But I don’t think I’m crazy, I just have a disorder.”
If the logic of that distinction escapes you, you are not alone.
There is not the slightest question in my mind that there are either state laws or professional regulations (most likely both) that apply to what this "doctor" did. He should have his license to practice revoked by the relevant board and be charged with something like criminal endangerment. A jurisdiction in which this is not punishable has embraced functional anarchy, and a particularly nasty variety thereof, under the guise of consent. If this goes, anything goes. There must be punishment, with due process of law and the full rigor thereof. Throw the book at him, and make him thereby an example to others.
Comments (14)
"Notice the similarity to "helping" people to die, by the way."
Or to "helping" people transition to their "real" sex.
Posted by Ilion | October 2, 2015 10:09 AM
Yeah, we know. That's part of how we know you're crazy.
Why was this person not in institutional care? A person who is prone to harming themselves is the sort of person we put behind locked doors, for their protection.
Don't the professional organizations have any standards about this? The psychologist should be out on his ear, right?
Got that? She knows she has a disorder, she knows that people with this disorder need help, she knows that they are in danger, but she "does not regret" doing it and feels "she didn't have a choice". Isn't that the CLASSIC situation for forced institutional care? What the hell was the psychologist playing at? Does he also give loaded guns to 4-year olds? How about put out rat poison where toddlers can reach it? That guy needs to be behind bars.
Posted by Tony | October 2, 2015 4:21 PM
I would think that a charge of grievous bodily harm ought to fit the crime. Consent is not generally regarded in law as making it a non-crime to harm someone seriously. There are obviously criminal charges that would apply if he did this against her will, so they should apply just as much here.
It's even _worse_ than leaving rat poison out for toddlers. He himself physically put the drops in her eyes. She even talks about how horribly painful it was, and how she only sustained herself by telling herself, "I'm going blind."
That he is not (apparently) being charged with anything, that his license to practice is (apparently) in no danger, says that the religion of consent has utterly undermined the rule of law.
What is even more chilling is that none of the news stories I read even _brought up_ the issue of what charges or sanctions could be brought against him. The journalists did not interview so much as a lawyer or law professor about the legal situation. They did not contact the attorney general's office for comment. They did not investigate the relevant professional standards. Nothing. No suggestion in the article that this even _might_ be unprofessional or sanctionable, much less criminal. That is terrifying.
Posted by Lydia | October 2, 2015 7:33 PM
When I was a prosecutor I wouldn't have hesitated to charge him with felonious assault. That's 3-10 in this state. He would do every second of it if it were up to me.
We had a domestic violence case where the man grabbed a glass salt/pepper shaker in each fist and beat his wife about the face until she was blind. I don't see why this is any different.
Posted by CJ | October 2, 2015 8:32 PM
Thank you, CJ, I'm glad to have the word from someone who was in the business.
I have a terrible feeling that the news reporters actually believe this wasn't illegal because she "consented." And the worst of it is that even if one got a sane prosecutor, there might be jury nullification because the jury might think that it _should_ be legal.
Posted by Lydia | October 2, 2015 9:11 PM
There is a pattern amongst liberal ideologists of preying on the weak, vulnerable and impressionable. The unborn, infants and toddlers, the elderly, the demented, the disabled, the crazy and disturbed. They pride themselves in murdering the disabled in the womb, yet consider it laudable to maim the able-bodied.
As the father of a profoundly-disabled adult daughter, I find it abominable to think that anyone would needlessly and deliberately inflict such a Cross on an able person. These lunatics play on emotions, of course, but how many of the genuinely disabled desperately long to see or hear or walk, just to give a few examples? And apart from such emotional longings, there are the practical responsibilities of looking after such people in a dignified manner. Who is going to look after this blind person now? Who is going to pay for their support? Surely this responsibility should be laid upon this "psychologist".
I hope this post comes across as rational because I am greatly angered by this event.
Posted by DeGaulle | October 3, 2015 7:10 AM
It definitely comes across as rational. That kind of outrage is what is needed, including in the community where this occurs, so that the prosecutor, police, etc., realize that they are expected to prosecute the "psychologist.
I suppose it's possible that the woman is hiding his identity, but it doesn't seem that there is any shame, and her family probably knows who he is. She says that her family figured out what was going on. If there were any motivation to investigate, I have little doubt he could be found and brought to justice by the police and courts. What is terrifying is that there appears not to be.
Posted by Lydia | October 3, 2015 9:23 AM
Clearly, this is a case of the blind leading the want-to-be blind...
Seriously, mutilation is a mortal sin. This woman is, obviously, not a Christian, or so screwed up in her understanding of Christ, if she does claim to be one, that she actually thinks that Christ would have gone around blinding people because they just know that it is healthy for them. Thinking A is not-A is called being delusional. Might I suggest that she can not really be suffering from BIID because she has no clue what bodily integrity means.
The Chicken
Posted by The Masked Chicken | October 3, 2015 12:07 PM
Perhaps it would be helpful if she or her family was made aware that this represents a good case for civil damages. They might very quickly discard their bullshit (excuse me) about "bodily integrity" and "identity" at the prospect of some easy unearned income. It mightn't be the noblest of solutions, but the prospect of the stupid victim making a profit from this satanic exploiter is perhaps the closest approach to justice available and, if successful, could be a precedent to discourage this kind of abuse.
Posted by DeGaulle | October 3, 2015 9:19 PM
I doubt that her family can sue without her agreement, unless she were declared officially mentally incompetent or something. I've only heard of a family suing for civil damages in the absence of the person harmed if that person were unable to speak for himself--dead, unconscious, etc. She is going to be fiercely loyal to this wicked "psychologist." That's clear from the interviews. So she would never consent. I don't think her family can sue him in that case.
I think the journalists themselves are engaging in some serious journalistic malpractice by reporting the story in such a neutral way. It's bizarre. To me, the indifference of the society at large is the worst aspect of the story (if there is a worst aspect). Nothing is being done at all, it appears. I hope I'm wrong. I hope that a year from now a story appears somewhere in small print saying that charges or *at least* professional association sanctions have been brought against the "psychologist." If so, we might never hear about it. But it's just not looking like it, if the current news stories are any guide.
Posted by Lydia | October 3, 2015 10:24 PM
I question how much these cases are outright insanity versus susceptible personalities looking for a way to be part of a glorified social class. The most that probably applies in cases like this is Munchausen syndrome.
Posted by Mike T | October 4, 2015 12:42 PM
It's one heck of a case of Munchausen syndrome that goes through the repeated pain of having drain cleaner poured into your eyes and expresses pleasure at finally being completely blind.
Posted by Lydia | October 4, 2015 2:42 PM
Yes, I came to the same conclusion - Munchausen syndrome, which has been hypothesized, recently, to be associated with certain types of depression. Of course, it is hard to make a diagnosis from the newspaper, but it does seem to fit all of the facts that are available. How is it that we laymen can see what the psychologist, apparently, could not?
The Chicken
Posted by The Masked Chicken | October 5, 2015 8:21 AM
I thought Munchausen syndrome was where the person made up symptoms and illness where none existed (what used to be called hypochondria), which is rather different from actual self-harm or inducing others to harm oneself due to a "vision" of oneself as disabled.
Posted by Lydia | October 5, 2015 9:28 AM