gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680601 Posts in 27601 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 29, 2024, 08:55:24 AM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 83 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Rocky Pamplin book about The Beach Boys?  (Read 489901 times)
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #150 on: December 15, 2015, 02:11:53 PM »

FdP - much of what you say has an unspoken premise that the prospective patient has limited resources, so wouldn't apply in this instance. Regardless of the process, the law in nearly every state has been adjusted during the period in question to tighten the standards by which a judge may determine that a patient requires involuntary commitment.
As you say, the law regarding this has become more progressive.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2015, 02:15:04 PM by Emily » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #151 on: December 15, 2015, 02:29:36 PM »

FdP - much of what you say has an unspoken premise that the prospective patient has limited resources, so wouldn't apply in this instance. Regardless of the process, the law in nearly every state has been adjusted during the period in question to tighten the standards by which a judge may determine that a patient requires involuntary commitment.
As you say, the law regarding this has become more progressive.

Emily - doctors are licensed state by state.  Even with the VA, which is federal, the VA psychiatrist works with the local courts in the various counties, when they have vets who require treatment.

And, even if you have a billion dollars and refuse to stop using drugs or alcohol, and get treatment, the family or others with "standing" can petition the court.  It does apply in all cases whether you are have no money or a lot of money.  

The state legislature decides on legislation that the court uses to allow for a petition for involuntary commitment.  If anything the states one-by-one are permitting more latitude for inpatient involuntary treatment.  

If you have a specific case law site, I'd like to see it.  I don't know of a magic BB wand that could have been waved over Dennis to get him treatment.  

« Last Edit: December 15, 2015, 02:32:17 PM by filledeplage » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #152 on: December 15, 2015, 02:34:26 PM »

FdP - much of what you say has an unspoken premise that the prospective patient has limited resources, so wouldn't apply in this instance. Regardless of the process, the law in nearly every state has been adjusted during the period in question to tighten the standards by which a judge may determine that a patient requires involuntary commitment.
As you say, the law regarding this has become more progressive.

Emily - doctors are licensed state by state.  Even with the VA, which is federal, the psychiatrist works with the local courts in the various counties, when they have vets who require treatment.

And, even if you have a billion dollars and refuse to stop using drugs or alcohol, and get treatment, the family or others with "standing" can petition the court.  It does apply in all cases whether you are have no money or a lot of money.  

The state legislature decides on legislation that the court uses to allow for a petition for involuntary commitment.  If anything the states one-by-one are permitting more latitude for inpatient involuntary treatment.  

If you have a specific case law site, I'd like to see it.  I don't know of a magic BB wand that could have been waved over Dennis to get him treatment.  


Paragraphs 1 and 3 - yes, and?
Paragraph 2 - the court appointed lawyer and bed availability that you discussed are irrelevant due to resources.
Your question - read the documents that you and I cited earlier.
Eta: missed the last bit of paragraph 2. There may be a recent correction. There was a wild swing from family members could fairly easily get a court ordered judgment of incompetence and get someone institutionalized to nearly impossible.
Clearly, they got a judge to do so for BW.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2015, 02:54:43 PM by Emily » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #153 on: December 15, 2015, 03:03:46 PM »

FdP - much of what you say has an unspoken premise that the prospective patient has limited resources, so wouldn't apply in this instance. Regardless of the process, the law in nearly every state has been adjusted during the period in question to tighten the standards by which a judge may determine that a patient requires involuntary commitment.
As you say, the law regarding this has become more progressive.

Emily - doctors are licensed state by state.  Even with the VA, which is federal, the psychiatrist works with the local courts in the various counties, when they have vets who require treatment.

And, even if you have a billion dollars and refuse to stop using drugs or alcohol, and get treatment, the family or others with "standing" can petition the court.  It does apply in all cases whether you are have no money or a lot of money.  

The state legislature decides on legislation that the court uses to allow for a petition for involuntary commitment.  If anything the states one-by-one are permitting more latitude for inpatient involuntary treatment.  

If you have a specific case law site, I'd like to see it.  I don't know of a magic BB wand that could have been waved over Dennis to get him treatment.  


Paragraphs 1 and 3 - yes, and?
Paragraph 2 - the court appointed lawyer and bed availability that you discussed are irrelevant due to resources.
Your question - read the documents that you and I cited earlier.
Emily - this goes back between 30 and 40 years.  It is not irrelevant.  There is utterly no time-frame context to your argument except the insistence that somehow the BB magic money wand could make problems go away.  There was a treatment void.  Addiction treatment still is a nascent area and there are plenty of funerals to prove that they are not getting it right yet.  

There was general ignorance about substance abuse in the 1970's and you have provided not one scintilla of evidence that there was treatment that was available, competent and consistent with the needs of anyone in need of treatment.  

Only that "no one cared enough to get a second opinion."  Second opinions in the 1970's were a brand-new concept and generally confined to cancer diagnoses and not for the lowest end of the food chain; addiction and mental illness.  Most patients would not dare insult the doctor in front of them by asking for one in the 1960's and 1970's.  The doctor was next to God. It is now standard operating procedure because it is a good thing, but largely unused back then.  

There are ethical rules in medicine which address treating someone who has seen another physician dealing with conflicts of interest and lack of objectivity.  Now many insurers require second opinions for surgery to avoid a doc who is "knife happy." Second medical opinions happen when there is a matter in dispute.

That time-frame context might be checked that out before attacking or blaming those who some perceive to have been remiss in their family duties to seek "second opinions."    

This is a link to the state by state commitment standards.

Some, such as CA deal with both alcoholism and mental illness under one section.  Some states have different laws (chapters and sections) for alcoholism and mental health.  If you scroll down, CA is in the list with a comprehensive statute.

http://metntalillnesspolicy.org/studies/state-standards-involuntary-treatment.html 

As always, hope it copies... Wink
« Last Edit: December 15, 2015, 03:23:49 PM by filledeplage » Logged
rockrush3
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 408


Rockrush3


View Profile
« Reply #154 on: December 15, 2015, 04:00:09 PM »

 Smiley   I sent an email today to an avid reader... that I meant to  post on this website because it contained information I feel is important pertaining to the use of drugs! So I would like to recap some of that i material. In terms of my employment as a handler/bodyguard for Brian... When Marylin called Stephen Love,then Beach Boy manager,freaked out over walking in on Brian offering heroin to... Well...the readers know who (this is all a very sensitive subject to all in the know) The important thing to note is that Stephen pleaded and begged Marylin to give him ONE chance to save Brian before she had him committed! This highly unfortunate, obscure, situation was of the upmost  concern to all !!! Here is the most significant fact I would like to impart to the readers... Marylin made it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR to Stephen that he had ONE shot at this...and ONE SHOT ONLY! If Stephen couldn't hire the right people to achieve this MOST CHALLENGING TASK...Of keeping Drugs out of Brian's life that she would not hesitate. at this juncture , to have Brian COMMITTED to a MENTAL INSTITUTION. I think most people can understand her conviction in this DIRE situation... these are her nine and seven year old daughters! Stephen and Marylin gave Stan Love and I "OUR ORDERS"... Pure and simple... NO DRUGS of ANY KIND...ANY WHERE...BY ANYBODY...EVER...PERIOD...Is that understood? And we were reminded of this on a daily basis! And last but not least it was made all the more EXPLICITLY clear to Stan and I that more than anyone else...THIS MEANS "DENNIS"!!! Everybody loved Dennis... he was a charmer... but he was also INCORRIGIBLE! And you could never let your guard down around him. THAT WAS THE LAW!!!    Smiley
« Last Edit: January 19, 2016, 01:29:11 PM by rockrush3 » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #155 on: December 15, 2015, 04:05:41 PM »

FdP - much of what you say has an unspoken premise that the prospective patient has limited resources, so wouldn't apply in this instance. Regardless of the process, the law in nearly every state has been adjusted during the period in question to tighten the standards by which a judge may determine that a patient requires involuntary commitment.
As you say, the law regarding this has become more progressive.

Emily - doctors are licensed state by state.  Even with the VA, which is federal, the psychiatrist works with the local courts in the various counties, when they have vets who require treatment.

And, even if you have a billion dollars and refuse to stop using drugs or alcohol, and get treatment, the family or others with "standing" can petition the court.  It does apply in all cases whether you are have no money or a lot of money.  

The state legislature decides on legislation that the court uses to allow for a petition for involuntary commitment.  If anything the states one-by-one are permitting more latitude for inpatient involuntary treatment.  

If you have a specific case law site, I'd like to see it.  I don't know of a magic BB wand that could have been waved over Dennis to get him treatment.  


Paragraphs 1 and 3 - yes, and?
Paragraph 2 - the court appointed lawyer and bed availability that you discussed are irrelevant due to resources.
Your question - read the documents that you and I cited earlier.
Emily - this goes back between 30 and 40 years.  It is not irrelevant.  There is utterly no time-frame context to your argument except the insistence that somehow the BB magic money wand could make problems go away.  There was a treatment void.  Addiction treatment still is a nascent area and there are plenty of funerals to prove that they are not getting it right yet.  

There was general ignorance about substance abuse in the 1970's and you have provided not one scintilla of evidence that there was treatment that was available, competent and consistent with the needs of anyone in need of treatment.  

Only that "no one cared enough to get a second opinion."  Second opinions in the 1970's were a brand-new concept and generally confined to cancer diagnoses and not for the lowest end of the food chain; addiction and mental illness.  Most patients would not dare insult the doctor in front of them by asking for one in the 1960's and 1970's.  The doctor was next to God. It is now standard operating procedure because it is a good thing, but largely unused back then.  

There are ethical rules in medicine which address treating someone who has seen another physician dealing with conflicts of interest and lack of objectivity.  Now many insurers require second opinions for surgery to avoid a doc who is "knife happy." Second medical opinions happen when there is a matter in dispute.

That time-frame context might be checked that out before attacking or blaming those who some perceive to have been remiss in their family duties to seek "second opinions."    

This is a link to the state by state commitment standards.

Some, such as CA deal with both alcoholism and mental illness under one section.  Some states have different laws (chapters and sections) for alcoholism and mental health.  If you scroll down, CA is in the list with a comprehensive statute.

http://metntalillnesspolicy.org/studies/state-standards-involuntary-treatment.html 

As always, hope it copies... Wink
i'm on a phone which doesn't lend itself well to this, so bear with me.
I don't see the relevance of the legislative or medical licensing processes.
The evidence is in the 3 documents linked.
The link you provided won't open on my phone but if it's listing current law, I don't see its relevance
An example of someone receiving treatment involuntarily as requested by family-members in Los Angeles in the 70's is Brian Wilson.
Receiving second medical opinions has been standard advice for as long as I've been around. And the adults I knew in the 70s followed it.  It's just simple common sense.
The BB magic money could certainly pay for an attorney (and has a lot) and a bed in a treatment facility, instead of thugs and charlatans.
I've never in my life read something as cavalier about violence as Mr. Pamplin's post above. Until yesterday the naïveté excuse was almost palatable. But a five year old would recognize that Mr. Pamplin is not a suitable guardian.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #156 on: December 15, 2015, 04:09:29 PM »

I sent an email today to an avid reader... that I meant to  post on this website because it contained information I feel is important pertaining to the use of drugs! So I would like to recap some of that i material. In terms of my employment as a handler/bodyguard for Brian... When Marylin called Stephen Love,then Beach Boy manager,freaked out over walking in on Brian offering heroin to... Well...the readers know who (this is all a very sensitive subject to all in the know) The important thing to note is that Stephen pleaded and begged Marylin to give him ONE chance to save Brian before she had him committed! This highly unfortunate, obscure, situation was of the upmost  concern to all !!! Here is the most significant fact I would like to impart to the readers... Marylin made it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR to Stephen that he had ONE shot at this...and One shot only! If Stephen couldn't hire the right people to achieve this MOST CHALLENGING TASK...Of keeping Drugs out of Brian's life that she would not hesitate. at this juncture , to have Brian COMMITTED to a MENTAL INSTITUTION. I think most people can understand her conviction in this DIRE situation... these are her nine and seven year old daughters! Stephen and Marylin gave Stan Love and I "OUR ORDERS"... Pure and simple... NO DRUGS of ANY KIND...ANY WHERE...BY ANYBODY...EVER...PERIOD...Is that understood? And we were reminded of this on a daily basis! And last but not least it was made all the more EXPLICITLY clear to Stan and I that more than anyone else...THIS MEANS "DENNIS"!!! Everybody loved Dennis... he was a charmer... but he was also INCORRIGIBLE! And you could never let your guard down around him. THAT WAS THE LAW-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it's a shame that Stephen Love thought it was best to hire muscle rather than follow up with what Marilyn Rutherford-Wilson was proposing. A quality treatment center would have been vastly better.
Logged
Sheriff John Stone
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5309



View Profile
« Reply #157 on: December 15, 2015, 05:29:50 PM »

I'm not taking sides, I don't condone violence, and institutionalizing would've been the best approach with Brian and Dennis.

I understand why Marilyn Wilson or any other family member was apprehensive about getting professional help for Brian and Dennis. I work with individuals with emotional and physical disabilities, and I see the process every day. It can be heartbreaking. I see families put through the wringer before finally asking for help. It's like "this new diet will help", "this (physical) exercise program will improve things", "these new friends will be a positive influence", "getting a job will make him/her more productive", "taking the computer and video games away is the key", "they need religion or spirituality in their life", and on and on. Finally, when everything is tried, and nothing seems to work, the parent or guardian or family member or friend will come forward and ask for help. It is such a huge step, the most difficult decision many of these people will ever have to make. I feel for them. Everybody has the basic dream or hope that their son or daughter, or husband or wife, or brother or sister, or friend - just be "normal". I have the upmost respect and admiration for people who come forward and ask for help.

And, like I said, I think I can understand what Marilyn Wilson and Dennis' wives, friends, and associates were going through. This "problem" just didn't happen overnight. Brian and Dennis were addicts for years, and with Brian you were also dealing with mental illness. Can you imagine what Marilyn Wilson went through, how she lived day-to-day, from 1964-1978? Can you imagine what Dennis' wives went through? I imagine they tried just about everything, things that would shock us. Sadly, the one thing they didn't pull off, and I'm not blaming them, was getting Brian and Dennis into treatment.

Of course seeking professional help would've been more beneficial than hiring "bodyguards". I don't think anybody is disputing that. But, as a fan, as a diehard, as an outsider, it sure looked like Rocky and Stan were succeeding with Brian. He lost weight the right way, he was grooming himself, wearing that athletic wear (in style at that time), he was singing better, playing bass on stage, and, other than his hospitalization in late 1978, was more of a Beach Boy than he had been for years...or since. And, after Stan and Rocky were dismissed, it was all downhill leading to Landy's return.

I know some people reading this will think that I agree with the decision to employ Stan and Rocky. I don't and that's not my point. I'll repeat that there was a better way to handle the problem(s). But, it also appears that Stan and Rocky did have some success. It was David Leaf, one of Brian Wilson's best friends, who wrote about how Brian was really "coming back" and how great it was to see. However,  these "bodyguard" situations are not new and they seldom last long term. Rocky mentioned Jim Morrison in one of his posts. The Doors did hire a bodyguard for Jim; his name was Tony Funches, but it didn't really work out. I would be curious how many other "rock stars" tried the bodyguard route and how much success they had with it.

Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #158 on: December 15, 2015, 05:34:32 PM »

FdP - much of what you say has an unspoken premise that the prospective patient has limited resources, so wouldn't apply in this instance. Regardless of the process, the law in nearly every state has been adjusted during the period in question to tighten the standards by which a judge may determine that a patient requires involuntary commitment.
As you say, the law regarding this has become more progressive.
Emily - doctors are licensed state by state.  Even with the VA, which is federal, the psychiatrist works with the local courts in the various counties, when they have vets who require treatment.

And, even if you have a billion dollars and refuse to stop using drugs or alcohol, and get treatment, the family or others with "standing" can petition the court.  It does apply in all cases whether you are have no money or a lot of money.  

The state legislature decides on legislation that the court uses to allow for a petition for involuntary commitment.  If anything the states one-by-one are permitting more latitude for inpatient involuntary treatment.  

If you have a specific case law site, I'd like to see it.  I don't know of a magic BB wand that could have been waved over Dennis to get him treatment.

Paragraphs 1 and 3 - yes, and?
Paragraph 2 - the court appointed lawyer and bed availability that you discussed are irrelevant due to resources.
Your question - read the documents that you and I cited earlier.
Emily - this goes back between 30 and 40 years.  It is not irrelevant.  There is utterly no time-frame context to your argument except the insistence that somehow the BB magic money wand could make problems go away.  There was a treatment void.  Addiction treatment still is a nascent area and there are plenty of funerals to prove that they are not getting it right yet.  

There was general ignorance about substance abuse in the 1970's and you have provided not one scintilla of evidence that there was treatment that was available, competent and consistent with the needs of anyone in need of treatment.  

Only that "no one cared enough to get a second opinion."  Second opinions in the 1970's were a brand-new concept and generally confined to cancer diagnoses and not for the lowest end of the food chain; addiction and mental illness.  Most patients would not dare insult the doctor in front of them by asking for one in the 1960's and 1970's.  The doctor was next to God. It is now standard operating procedure because it is a good thing, but largely unused back then.  

There are ethical rules in medicine which address treating someone who has seen another physician dealing with conflicts of interest and lack of objectivity.  Now many insurers require second opinions for surgery to avoid a doc who is "knife happy." Second medical opinions happen when there is a matter in dispute.

That time-frame context might be checked that out before attacking or blaming those who some perceive to have been remiss in their family duties to seek "second opinions."    

This is a link to the state by state commitment standards.

Some, such as CA deal with both alcoholism and mental illness under one section.  Some states have different laws (chapters and sections) for alcoholism and mental health.  If you scroll down, CA is in the list with a comprehensive statute.

http://metntalillnesspolicy.org/studies/state-standards-involuntary-treatment.html  

As always, hope it copies... Wink
i'm on a phone which doesn't lend itself well to this, so bear with me.
I don't see the relevance of the legislative or medical licensing processes.
The evidence is in the 3 documents linked.
The link you provided won't open on my phone but if it's listing current law, I don't see its relevance
An example of someone receiving treatment involuntarily as requested by family-members in Los Angeles in the 70's is Brian Wilson.
Receiving second medical opinions has been standard advice for as long as I've been around. And the adults I knew in the 70s followed it.  It's just simple common sense.
The BB magic money could certainly pay for an attorney (and has a lot) and a bed in a treatment facility, instead of thugs and charlatans.
I've never in my life read something as cavalier about violence as Mr. Pamplin's post above. Until yesterday the naïveté excuse was almost palatable. But a five year old would recognize that Mr. Pamplin is not a suitable guardian.
Emily - when you have a chance - and not on a phone, just read through the section on CA.  It is not rocket science.  It is absolutely relevant.  Those laws relate to medical intervention.  You just can't lock someone up indefinitely because "his wife said so" for whatever reason alleged.  

We are a nation of laws.  Even Marilyn could not snap her fingers and have her husband's liberty taken away.  She would have to go through a process, for involuntary commitment, likely with a doctor who was a treating physician, and likely who had admitting privileges.  And there are standards that must be met.  

And, for your relatives from the 70's, better the 50's and 60's, and ask them when "second opinions" became an accepted practice.  I can tell you that insurance did not always cover them until public policy changed with regard medicine.  For example, when Cesarean rates were about 60% in certain hospitals, with certain docs, inquiries were made as to whether they were "medically necessary." OB/GYNS got more money for surgical deliveries as opposed to natural ones.  That second opinion thing evolved over time.  It got rid of some medical corruption in certain areas.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2015, 05:50:51 PM by filledeplage » Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #159 on: December 15, 2015, 05:44:31 PM »

It's all incredibly sad, because I'm sure that *somewhere* on planet Earth in the 1970s and 1980s there existed a person, people, a program(s), etc that would have had success in getting both Brian and Denny back on their feet. However, who those people were, what program(s) this would have been is not something that anyone can pinpoint specifically.

It's easy to speak in general terms about "there had to be a better way", but nobody at the time necessarily knew what that way was. And even now, it's not like we can look at an old 1970s phone book and pull up a name of a center, and know that Brian or Denny would have responded better to that particular center. Maybe yes, maybe no. The only option I could possibly think of would be if the family went on a radio show and asked the public to be pointed to the best way. And even then, they'd likely have been hit up by a tidal wave of 99% charlatans on the level of Landy or even worse.

Ultimately, as sad as it is, the regretful-in-hindsight choices that were made (beating Denny up + rehiring Landy for Landy II) might have been the best, desperate choices that anyone knew of at the time. I think that the family members must have been so desperate for action to take place right then, at a very critical moment in time, that they felt they'd run out of time to casually try out option after option after option without results, knowing full well that each delay could cause more drugs to be consumed, and the fear was surely that this drug usage - if not immediately dealt with by any means necessary - would lead to death.

If, for example, Marilyn had tried every option that she knew about - and I'm sure she must have asked a great many people for advice, and did not know of any better option, then I'm not sure what else could have been done. Being unaware of a better option was simply a fact; people did their best, and I'm while I'm certainly not trying to defend any wrongdoings or line-crossings that were ultimately detrimental in other ways to Denny and Brian, I think it's impossible for any of us to know with any degree of certainty just *how* a better scenario could have transpired than what actually did.  
« Last Edit: December 15, 2015, 06:15:19 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #160 on: December 15, 2015, 05:47:04 PM »

I'm not taking sides, I don't condone violence, and institutionalizing would've been the best approach with Brian and Dennis.

I understand why Marilyn Wilson or any other family member was apprehensive about getting professional help for Brian and Dennis. I work with individuals with emotional and physical disabilities, and I see the process every day. It can be heartbreaking. I see families put through the wringer before finally asking for help. It's like "this new diet will help", "this (physical) exercise program will improve things", "these new friends will be a positive influence", "getting a job will make him/her more productive", "taking the computer and video games away is the key", "they need religion or spirituality in their life", and on and on. Finally, when everything is tried, and nothing seems to work, the parent or guardian or family member or friend will come forward and ask for help. It is such a huge step, the most difficult decision many of these people will ever have to make. I feel for them. Everybody has the basic dream or hope that their son or daughter, or husband or wife, or brother or sister, or friend - just be "normal". I have the upmost respect and admiration for people who come forward and ask for help.

And, like I said, I think I can understand what Marilyn Wilson and Dennis' wives, friends, and associates were going through. This "problem" just didn't happen overnight. Brian and Dennis were addicts for years, and with Brian you were also dealing with mental illness. Can you imagine what Marilyn Wilson went through, how she lived day-to-day, from 1964-1978? Can you imagine what Dennis' wives went through? I imagine they tried just about everything, things that would shock us. Sadly, the one thing they didn't pull off, and I'm not blaming them, was getting Brian and Dennis into treatment.

Of course seeking professional help would've been more beneficial than hiring "bodyguards". I don't think anybody is disputing that. But, as a fan, as a diehard, as an outsider, it sure looked like Rocky and Stan were succeeding with Brian. He lost weight the right way, he was grooming himself, wearing that athletic wear (in style at that time), he was singing better, playing bass on stage, and, other than his hospitalization in late 1978, was more of a Beach Boy than he had been for years...or since. And, after Stan and Rocky were dismissed, it was all downhill leading to Landy's return.

I know some people reading this will think that I agree with the decision to employ Stan and Rocky. I don't and that's not my point. I'll repeat that there was a better way to handle the problem(s). But, it also appears that Stan and Rocky did have some success. It was David Leaf, one of Brian Wilson's best friends, who wrote about how Brian was really "coming back" and how great it was to see. However,  these "bodyguard" situations are not new and they seldom last long term. Rocky mentioned Jim Morrison in one of his posts. The Doors did hire a bodyguard for Jim; his name was Tony Funches, but it didn't really work out. I would be curious how many other "rock stars" tried the bodyguard route and how much success they had with it.
Sheriff - that excellent post was great with the way in which you explained how the family is torn to shreds when they have to commit a family member and how they long for normalcy.  Recently, I observed a court hearing where a spouse petitioned to have her husband involuntarily committed for drugs and alcohol and it was devastating to see how much she had gone through to get to the point that this situation was completely beyond her control.  His addiction issues had escalated to the point he was no longer functioning as a responsible adult.  The wife wanted her husband "back." You could tell that it took everything in her to file that petition.

The judge weighed the wife's testimony, that of the court psychiatrist, and of course the husband contested the petition, with a court-appointed attorney, but the judge could see that this petition should be granted and ordered treatment.  It is never done lightly and is almost always the last resort so the person is not a danger to him or herself and the general public.  Outpatient treatment is usually the first line of defense, but not always the solution.

Thanks for that post.   Wink
Logged
Pretty Funky
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 5855


View Profile
« Reply #161 on: December 15, 2015, 06:28:53 PM »

RockRush3. A small detail I know but the name is Marilyn, not Marylin.  police
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #162 on: December 15, 2015, 06:38:31 PM »

Sheriff John Stone – that was an excellent post. It can be a very long, hard road before some people reach the point that they realize that a family member needs professional care; a longer stretch before they come to the conclusion that that care should be full-time.
But with Brian and Dennis Wilson it’s pretty clear that they’d reached that point. The Eugene Landy set-up was precisely that. The problem is they chose a person who operated outside of the profession without the history or depth of resources of an institution.
With Dennis Wilson, it’s been stated that people made threats, cajoled, etc. to get him to voluntarily be institutionalized.
So, in both instances, they concluded that the individuals needed professional, full-time care. With Brian Wilson, they got involuntary full-time care.
Once you’ve reached that decision, and gone through the legal process, why not do some research to ensure you are getting good care?

CenturyDeprived – But nobody tried any centers. Why would one not try the route that those in the profession would tell you is the most likely to succeed? We don’t of course know whether it would have been successful, but the odds would’ve been much higher if they went to an institution that had a track-record of success with similar cases and a depth of resources.
It’s easy to say “there had to be a better way” because there demonstrably was a better way. People here act like we’re talking about the 1870s. We’re not.
You say the only option would be to go on the radio and ask. How about going to psychologists at the research and care institutions in Los Angeles and ask? Why is that so hard?
It’s not just hindsight that says, to me, getting someone to physically threaten and beat them up is not the best choice. Regarding Landy, again, why did they go to some renegade? Why not seek advice from people who are engaged with the entire field? I can’t imagine anyone at one of the reputable psychiatric institutions in the region would’ve recommended Landy, so if they asked, they seem not to have taken the advice.
Fille de Plage, I may look at it later. But current law is not pertinent to the 70’s.  Marilyn could not snap her fingers and have her husband’s liberty taken away, but she did go through the process to do so successfully. So, whether or not it was easy is kind of moot regarding Marilyn and Brian – easy or hard, she did it.
Regarding second opinions, my grandmother was a schizophrenic morphine addict who was involuntarily institutionalized in the 60’s. The legal process was simple. The choice of institution was pondered over, my dad and his siblings did their research, got some opinions and chose Silver Hill.
My step family has a recurring history of schizophrenia with a few institutionalizations. At least one in each of the last three generations (knock on wood not the current one). They made efforts to find the right institution.
Why would we think that people were stupider and more reckless 50 years ago than they are now? Why would people 50 years ago be less likely to care about the quality of the care their family members receive?
I just don’t understand this thinking.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2015, 07:18:37 PM by Emily » Logged
Sheriff John Stone
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5309



View Profile
« Reply #163 on: December 15, 2015, 07:27:42 PM »

Regarding Landy, again, why did they go to some renegade? Why not seek advice from people who are engaged with the entire field? I can’t imagine anyone at one of the reputable psychiatric institutions in the region would’ve recommended Landy, so if they asked, they seem not to have taken the advice.

I think that Landy provided options to Marilyn that eased her fears, her apprehensions, and would accomplish her goals on what was best for Brian as a person - and as a Beach Boy. Remember, Landy wasn't fired (the first time) because of his treatment of Brian, it was because of exorbitant fees.

With Landy, instead of bringing Brian to the hospital, you brought the hospital to Brian. Again, I'm not criticizing Marilyn's decisions, but I think, to her, Landy covered all of the bases. By not institutionalizing Brian, you avoided the stigma of "that Beach Boy Brian Wilson is nuts". There were then, and still to some extent today, horror stories of the treatment of patients at institutions. Maybe Marilyn thought she would (unintentionally) choose the wrong one? How long would they "keep him in there"? Maybe he would come out a different person? Maybe it's just the drugs, not really mental illness? And on and on. I completely understand.

And, Landy had all the answers. Landy could make Brian lose a hundred and fifty pounds in a year; Brian couldn't do that in a hospital. Landy could get Brian off the drugs without subjecting Brian to those "crazy patients"; Landy would surround Brian with groovy people. And, Landy could get Brian back in the studio and back on the stage - quickly! In a couple of months? In a couple of weeks? I think it's naive to ignore that might've been a goal, and I'm not saying it was a bad or unrealistic goal, to be a productive person and return to something you love. I'm just not sure that a competent doctor would've recommended or even attempted that in such a short period of time.

Yes, with Landy grafted to Brian, you still had some public stigma of Brian being mentally ill. But, hey, Landy was the "Doctor To The Stars", so that might've eased the pain a little bit.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #164 on: December 15, 2015, 07:43:09 PM »

Regarding Landy, again, why did they go to some renegade? Why not seek advice from people who are engaged with the entire field? I can’t imagine anyone at one of the reputable psychiatric institutions in the region would’ve recommended Landy, so if they asked, they seem not to have taken the advice.

I think that Landy provided options to Marilyn that eased her fears, her apprehensions, and would accomplish her goals on what was best for Brian as a person - and as a Beach Boy. Remember, Landy wasn't fired (the first time) because of his treatment of Brian, it was because of exorbitant fees.

With Landy, instead of bringing Brian to the hospital, you brought the hospital to Brian. Again, I'm not criticizing Marilyn's decisions, but I think, to her, Landy covered all of the bases. By not institutionalizing Brian, you avoided the stigma of "that Beach Boy Brian Wilson is nuts". There were then, and still to some extent today, horror stories of the treatment of patients at institutions. Maybe Marilyn thought she would (unintentionally) choose the wrong one? How long would they "keep him in there"? Maybe he would come out a different person? Maybe it's just the drugs, not really mental illness? And on and on. I completely understand.

And, Landy had all the answers. Landy could make Brian lose a hundred and fifty pounds in a year; Brian couldn't do that in a hospital. Landy could get Brian off the drugs without subjecting Brian to those "crazy patients"; Landy would surround Brian with groovy people. And, Landy could get Brian back in the studio and back on the stage - quickly! In a couple of months? In a couple of weeks? I think it's naive to ignore that might've been a goal, and I'm not saying it was a bad or unrealistic goal, to be a productive person and return to something you love. I'm just not sure that a competent doctor would've recommended or even attempted that in such a short period of time.

Yes, with Landy grafted to Brian, you still had some public stigma of Brian being mentally ill. But, hey, Landy was the "Doctor To The Stars", so that might've eased the pain a little bit.
Explaining the choice of Landy with naïveté is something that I've not reacted strongly to in the past. In isolation, I can see where someone very unsophisticated might make that choice, though reading contemporary articles indicate to me that the idea that Brian was nuts was already out there (and I remember as a kid that Brian Wilson's reputation was essentially that. The damage was done), but more importantly it was evident that Brian Wilson was living like a dog (a mistreated one at that). But, again, with the Pamplin writings here, it became clear to me that something worse than naïveté (not being pretentious, my phone is automatically accenting) was in effect. Because no one is naive enough to interact with someone like that and not recognize that they are hiring abuse.
Logged
rockrush3
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 408


Rockrush3


View Profile
« Reply #165 on: December 16, 2015, 11:18:12 AM »

 Smiley   It seems there is some confusion as to who was doing what.. who was buying... who was giving what to who...etc...etc... JUST FOR THE RECORD... Carolyn Williams, Brian's live in nurse, who basically replaced Stan and I (Rocky) called Stan and told him that Dennis would come over to Brian's house on a regular basis... and BORROW money from Brian to buy COCAINE... and Dennis would SHARE that COCAINE with Brian!!! Is everyone clear on that? TWO things are apparent here... Carolyn Williams could not keep DRUGS out of Brian's life................. When Stan and I worked for Brian he NEVER EVER GOT COCAINE...or any other drugs.  The second thing that is apparent...  is that STAN AND I COULD KEEP DRUGS OUT OF BRIAN'S LIFE...That was the whole JOB DESCRIPTION !!! In order to SAVE BRIAN'S LIFE we needed to keep Brian DRUG FREE... and not have Marilyn  have Brian COMMITTED to a MENTAL INSTITUTION!!!    Smiley  Smiley  Smiley
« Last Edit: January 19, 2016, 01:29:45 PM by rockrush3 » Logged
rockrush3
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 408


Rockrush3


View Profile
« Reply #166 on: December 16, 2015, 12:19:15 PM »

 Smiley   There is another aspect that seems to have gotten lost...In reference to Dennis...as I have said ... everyone LOVED Dennis... he was a charmer... when he wanted to be...but he could also be an asshole...depending on his mood...towards the end... It was DEPENDING on weather or not he could get his DRUGS! Dennis had become a salacious dependent DRUG ADDICT... Not to mention his propensity for ALCOHOL... Dennis lived on Myers Rum and OJ...or Myers rum and Coke (the kind you drink) But make no mistake Dennis never turned down a hit or a bump... as it was commonly referred to in the 70's. Also...another aspect that has gotten lost is...The Beach Boys put Dennis in rehabs a number of times... three that I know about! But it was usually when he was completely broke and trying to borrow money from Carl, who was Dennis's closest family member, let us not forget that Carl was also Dennis's YOUNGER BROTHER... and Dennis could beat Carl up...Dennis was a hellion. But Dennis would stay in these REHABS for a day or two, get a little strength back, some sympathy...some encouragement...and some MONEY from the well intentions of friends...fans... or the latest phone number he had in his pocket from the guy that was buying him drinks the night before at some bar! The last REHAB...was a Beach Boy MANDATED 28 day INTERVENTION ... that the BEACH BOYS PAID FOR... Under one condition... that Dennis stay in the rehab the entire 28 days... Or he would not be allowed back in the Beach Boys! Dennis LOVED being a BEACH BOY... it was everything to him... it meant more to him than anything...except DRUGS! Most people know how addictive drugs are...and most unfortunately... tragically...Dennis was victim of this reality! Everyone around Dennis would have done anything for him... anything in there power to help him!!! But ADDICTION doesn't work that way...as you all know. Dennis needed to REACH WAY DOWN IN HIS SOUL...to find the METTLE to battle his VICES...but I can assure you Dennis is SORELY MISSED! Smiley
« Last Edit: January 19, 2016, 01:31:19 PM by rockrush3 » Logged
Sheriff John Stone
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5309



View Profile
« Reply #167 on: December 16, 2015, 05:15:54 PM »

Rocky, I have a few questions for you:

1. How long did you play football with the Montreal Alouettes?

2. How did it come about that you recorded with Brian Wilson, and what songs did you sing on?

3. After your altercation with Carl Wilson in Australia (1978), was there any "talk" of you being terminated?

4. Why were you eventually terminated? Was it directly related to the Dennis beating?

5. What are you doing today? Do you have a Facebook page or website? Can you post a recent photo of yourself?
 
Logged
The LEGENDARY OSD
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1948

luHv Estrangement Syndrome. It's a great thing!


View Profile
« Reply #168 on: December 16, 2015, 08:07:27 PM »

Hey "Rockrush", I've gotta couple of questions, too.

1. In your book, do you discuss your relationship with myKe luHv?

2. If Dennis was so f#cked up when you found him,  how come ya had to put him through the meat grinder? Sounds like you were a bit overzealous in your attack, huh?

3. Do you compare yourself to the Loves when it comes to smacking people around when they're down?

 
Logged

myKe luHv, the most hated, embarrassing clown the world of music has ever witnessed.
Lee Marshall
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1639



View Profile WWW
« Reply #169 on: December 16, 2015, 09:42:51 PM »

Ya...I've got some questions too Rocket.

1... Between you and Stan...how did you decide who would actually get the ONLY ball the 2 of you obviously shared on any given escapade?
2...When you encountered someone who was close to passing out cold were they still tough to beat up ... or between the 2 of you...did you still prevail?
3...You had nothing to do with the embezzlement...I'm sure?  That was just the 'boss'?  You know...Mr. "No Contest".
4...You smacked Carl upside the head 'cause Dennis could beat him up and steal money to buy drugs for Brian?  So this was just a preventitive measure?  Or you weren't man enough to accept a smaller, weaker, pacifist speaking [MAYBE] out of turn, who was obviously out of his gourd, and so you lost it, and cold-cocked him?  Even if he really was, and always has been your superior in EVERY way imaginable?

Sounds like quite the book. LOL
Logged

"Add Some...Music...To Your Day.  I do.  It's the only way to fly.  Well...what was I gonna put here?  An apple a day keeps the doctor away?  Hum me a few bars."   Lee Marshall [2014]

Donald  TRUMP!  ...  Is TOAST.  "What a disaster."  "Overrated?"... ... ..."BIG LEAGUE."  "Lots of people are saying it"  "I will tell you that."   Collusion, Money Laundering, Treason.   B'Bye Dirty Donnie!!!  Adios!!!  Bon Voyage!!!  Toodles!!!  Move yourself...SPANKY!!!  Jail awaits.  It's NO "Witch Hunt". There IS Collusion...and worse.  The Russian Mafia!!  Conspiracies!!  Fraud!!  This racist is goin' down...and soon.  Good Riddance.  And take the kids.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #170 on: December 17, 2015, 06:43:57 AM »

Ya...I've got some questions too Rocket.

1... Between you and Stan...how did you decide who would actually get the ONLY ball the 2 of you obviously shared on any given escapade?
2...When you encountered someone who was close to passing out cold were they still tough to beat up ... or between the 2 of you...did you still prevail?
3...You had nothing to do with the embezzlement...I'm sure?  That was just the 'boss'?  You know...Mr. "No Contest".
4...You smacked Carl upside the head 'cause Dennis could beat him up and steal money to buy drugs for Brian?  So this was just a preventitive measure?  Or you weren't man enough to accept a smaller, weaker, pacifist speaking [MAYBE] out of turn, who was obviously out of his gourd, and so you lost it, and cold-cocked him?  Even if he really was, and always has been your superior in EVERY way imaginable?

Sounds like quite the book. LOL
best question ever.
Logged
Smilin Ed H
Guest
« Reply #171 on: December 17, 2015, 10:13:03 AM »

Well, if that was him, we've probably f***ed up again.
Logged
MarcellaHasDirtyFeet
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 582


View Profile
« Reply #172 on: December 17, 2015, 10:39:03 AM »

Well, if that was him, we've probably f***ed up again.

Yes, but think about how lucky we are that some of the posters were able to show off how witty they can be. Thank goodness they shared their opinion, as is their right. This board is better now that they've stood up and were counted among the righteous.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #173 on: December 17, 2015, 11:47:15 AM »


Mr. Pamplin seems to have been willing to continue posting despite a pretty judgy conversation. I have been wondering, however, if anyone out there is going to strike up a dialog. It's beginning to seem not. I doubt he's any more willing to stick around for silence.
Well, I think Sheriff John Stone is making an authentic attempt. So there's one.

Logged
The 4th Wilson Bro.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 227


View Profile
« Reply #174 on: December 17, 2015, 12:14:06 PM »

My only question for Mr. Pamplin would be:

Have you ever felt any regret for what you did to Carl Wilson that day (night?) in the hotel room in Australia?

That's an honest question, and if you decide at any point to revisit this thread, I very much look forward to you providing an honest answer.
Logged
gfx
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 83 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.354 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!