<%@ Language=JavaScript %> sugar

No Service?

Things have been changing in the orgs.  In some ways there is an easier, more relaxed scene but in some ways they are tightening up. People have mentioned that the number of people who aren't allowed to have auditing is increasing.  I don't know how accurate that is--but I can see why it might well be the case.

Cerridwen (May 22, 2001):> I have heard from several sources that approval to do services at >Flag has become more difficult. Specifically, any PTSness, any illness, any thoughts of >suicide (just a passing thought) will get you banned from services at Flag.

I heard the same thing one time but I immediately protested about the sense of it to the person who told me, as I don't think it can be quite right. Surely there would have to be a degree of ~intention~ to commit suicide along with the thought.

Otherwise it would be like the story of the man who was promised a fortune if he could only avoid thinking about a donkey's tail. (It's an impossible task.)

I reserve the right to consider and think about anything I want. I hate to think that people are going around thinking that they can't ~think~ about suicide (a very different thing from actively planning it and collecting together convenient bits of rope).

>I also know of one person auditing on OT 7 who was feeling rather psychotic and was banned >from Flag instead of handled.  This action effectively cutting him off of any future services or >help.  This data was given to me within the past few months.

Now that's a difficult situation. They don't have the facilities or the experience to deal with people who actually go psychotic or who have breakdowns.

'Type Three [PTS] is beyond the facilities of orgs not equipped with hospitals as they are entirely psychotic.'
L. Ron Hubbard. Introduction to Scientology Ethics. Page 184. Bridge. 1998 edition.

If someone is feeling psychotic, they will probably recover - but they might have a breakdown.

Obviously the guys at Flag have to consider the problems that can arise if things go wrong and (rightly or wrongly) they preferred not to risk it in the case you mention.

If I was handling someone like that I'd probably have them see a doctor who could give them a check-up and make sure their diet was adequate.

I'd also have them take a vacation if possible and give them a program to do some hill walking (if possible with friends).

I think it's a bit extreme to say that the guy is banned from any future services or help. Things change and he can always reapply later. I'd suggest that he gets his life in order (there's one program laid out in Professional Auditor's Bulletin 6, and there are many other applicable references). He should do some useful things, get his life in order, and then reapply to do services in two or three years.

There's plenty of stuff a person can study and apply at home. The vast majority of LRH's work has been published and is laid out in books and lectures for anyone who cares to take the trouble to work their way through it. There's a wealth of wonderful material there for anyone who likes reading.

I'll be more comfortable when the orgs have it all released (on one 27GB new-generation DVD ideally), but even now much of the information is available for anyone who wants it.

One reason for the changes and the tightening up is the increased critical scrutiny.  As became apparent in the Lisa McPherson case, the orgs don't have the experience, the facilities, or the proper licenses necessary for dealing with people who have had severe breakdowns. Flag later made arrangements with a local hospital to take such cases in the future.

I've made a page on this subject now.


Hope this helps someone.

Freddie T


Main Index <----