Grunen politician raises accusations against supervision of the clinic – press inquiry to BKH for four weeks unanswered
Forensic psychiatry in Bayreuth has a problem: For many months, the clinic and with it the Bayreuth District Hospital have been under prere because of the forced psychiatrist Gustl Mollath. In particular Dr. Klaus Leipziger, chief physician of forensic psychiatry in Bayreuth, is under fire for his controversial expert opinions in the Mollath case. Now the responsible persons of the clinic react – under protection assistance of a lawyer.
Under the heading "Opinion of the municipal enterprise clinics and homes of the district Upper Franconia" the clinic has published a letter from the lawyer Karsten Schieseck, in which the clinic is trying to defend itself against the attacks.
A total of four "Theses", which surround the case Mollath and which are all negative for the hospital, want to refute the responsible persons with the help of the lawyer. Briefly the clinic wants to have stated
- Gustl Mollath is not in a psychiatric hospital solely because of his black money accusations
- Before Leipziger drew up an expert opinion on Mollath, he had at least spoken to the patient
- Leipziger’s expert opinion, as used in the initial proceedings, is not the only expert opinion the courts have taken into account in the case
- Mollath is not being treated unlawfully or inappropriately in the clinic. Supervising authorities had also not found any violations.
Erika Lorenz-Loblein, Mollath’s defense attorney, has looked at the clinic’s statement and, among other criticisms, states to Telepolis that Leipziger, as an expert witness, had had complete access to the files. "Part of the files", Lorenz-Loblein notes, "my client’s statement of defense, i.e. the 106 pages with the bank’s correspondence – with the reference to revision -, as well as faxes about instructions from numbered accounts."
An expert opinion is to be given to the best of one’s knowledge and belief according to § 25 of the medical professional code of conduct. Dr. Leipziger therefore had to ask the court – before a finding of a delusion – how to deal with the fact that on the one hand a delusion is said to exist, but on the other hand there are documents in the files which offer evidence that Mr. Mollath’s statements seem to be true. In my opinion, this failure to inquire with the court is a violation of the doctor’s duties in the evaluation of Mr. Mollath.
Lorenz-Loblein also mentions that there may be a further breach of duty by Leipziger. Leipziger had, so the lawyer, her client – who is classified after all as dangerous and delusional – on 21. released into freedom on March 21, 2005. It was not until 25. July, Leipziger’s expert opinion was sent to the court: "How can Dr. Leipziger reconcile with his medical duties to unleash on the population a man he considers dangerous?"
In the current statement of the clinic is also spoken of a "the rampant and, in some cases, completely distorted or even false reporting in various radio and print media and, in particular, also on the Internet" spoken. At the same time, the clinic refers to its transparent attitude in the Mollath affair and promises to provide interested representatives of the media – after prior arrangement of a date – with an interview "Insight into the implementation of the Mabregelvollzugs to be granted."
However, the clinic’s proclaimed transparency does not seem to apply to press inquiries. For more than four weeks now, Telepolis has been waiting for answers to various questions posed to the clinic’s board of directors and to Klaus Leipziger. The clinic even refused to give the name of a specific contact person from the board of directors in case of telephone inquiries. Shameful behavior for a municipal company. The questions asked are therefore to be published here:
Questions to the management board
- The chief physician of the forensic psychiatry has prepared expert opinions on Mr. Mollath. To whom was the remuneration for the expert opinions paid??
- In the press release of their house it states: "It is alleged that Mr. Mollath’s telephone calls were intercepted. Each ward has a patient telephone number with a so-called "contact person". Talking cap, from which every patient can make a phone call confidentially, i.e. without being overheard. The telephone system of the district hospital does not have any technical precautions that could be tapped. Moreover, it is possible for patients to make phone calls without being disturbed while going out to the premises. When Mr. Mollath speaks loudly, without using the speech hood, in the face of employees, he seems to place no value on the possible confidentiality of the conversation." We are concerned in this question with the following statement: "When Mr. Mollath speaks loudly on the telephone, without using the intercom cap, in the presence of staff, he does not seem to attach any importance to the possible confidentiality of the conversation." Mr. Mollath’s attorney, Erika Lorenz-Loblein, has stated that telephone conversations were at least partially recorded in writing. Why? Even if Mr. Mollath, as claimed in the press release, "loudly" If a forensic expert speaks on the phone, so that employees should be able to hear the conversation, why are the contents recorded?? How is it possible that an employee documents the contents of a telephone conversation with the defense in the medical record?? What is the position of the board on the subject "Transcripts of telephone calls"?
- In the press release of your house it continues: "It is not the task of a forensic expert to determine facts and to validate them legally. In our constitutional state, this task is the sole responsibility of the courts." Your chief physician Dr. Leipziger has only recently said that if the courts should come to a different decision regarding the alleged criminal facts of which Mr. Mollath is accused, then he, i.e. Dr. Mollath, would have to be released from custody. Leipziger, possibly also his appraisal other. This position raises questions: Does this mean that the psychiatric reports drawn up by her doctor are dependent on the "Findings" of the courts? In other words, are the psychiatric reports prepared by your doctors always in line with the legal findings provided by the courts? "State of knowledge"? If this were the case, this would mean that your psychiatrists would have to be. The board of directors is not responsible for the fact that a patient was diagnosed with a mental disorder without this necessarily being the case (which may well be the case from time to time, since courts are naturally fallible). Is this correct?
- Furthermore: How do you, as the responsible board member, evaluate the statements and the attitude of your chief physician Dr. Mollath?. Leipziger in connection with the Gustl Mollath case?
- Do you, as the responsible board member, stand behind the decisions of your chief physician Dr. Leipziger?
Questions to Dr. Leipziger
- Mr. Mollath has said that during his stay in Bayreuth Hospital in 2006 he was bound by his hands and feet while going through the court? If so, for what reason??
- The BKH’s statements to the court in recent years were against Mollath’s release because he refused to be treated and therefore had a "offense treatment" was not possible (see here, page 13). Therefore the question: What does the therapy look like in your clinic, which, if Mollath had been willing to it, would have led to a "Treatment success" and could have led to a positive prognosis? Or to put it another way: What was and is the concrete treatment plan for Mollath, the successful implementation of which failed due to his lack of cooperation?? If you are unable to answer these questions for reasons of data protection or your patient’s right to privacy, please answer the questions in general. Does it happen in the BKH Bayreuth that patients are tied up by their hands and fists while walking through the courtyard?? If yes, for what reason? How does the BKH Bayreuth deal therapeutically with an inmate who denies the crime and claims that there was a miscarriage of justice?? In connection with the rights of personhood resp. I would like to refer to your press release regarding the data protection aspects. They write: "The following comments are made exclusively on points that have already been made public by Mr. Mollath’s supporters/attorneys and which, from our point of view, require clarification and concern the general procedure in the Clinic for Forensic Psychiatry at the Bayreuth District Hospital." The facts mentioned in points 1 and 2 are already publicly known. Further question:
- The press release continues: "It is claimed that Mr. Mollath is woken up every two hours at night in order to deprive him of his sleep. No patient in the clinic is woken up for two hours at night, as is publicly stated. What is true is that, as is customary in hospitals, during the night between 23:00 and 05:00, nursing staff carry out checks in individual patient rooms without waking patients." What’s up: "Night show"? How does this "Nightly News" with them in the clinic from? Is it right to shine a light into the rooms? Is it correct that directly on the patients is shined? Mr. Dr. Leipziger, you are sharply attacked in numerous media reports and criticized for your behavior. Would you like to say something to your critics?
Apparently, the competent authorities do not find the behavior of the clinic worthy of criticism either. The local Grunen politician Andreas Losche denounces on his homepage how the Bamberg District Administrator and District President Dr. Gunther Denzler (CSU) deals with the accusations against the clinic, which are in the room. Losche points out that district councilor Ulricke Heucken tried early on to get those responsible at the local level to take a closer look at the actions of Bayreuth’s BKH in the Mollath case:
On the contrary, the district council under his leadership has since rejected all of Heuckens’ motions on the case. So a first request for an on-site meeting in the forensics of the clinic. "Medical secrecy" heibt it there, table presentations Fehlanzeige, request rejected, "none of our business!" Information, documents and reports of Heucken to the district parliament colleagues stumbled on gross ignorance, at this time ubrigen also still in the state parliament. Even the Green parliamentary group showed no interest in the case of Mollath in the spring of 2012, although the doubts about the legality of his accommodation increased. Today the green parliamentary group in the state parliament has set up an investigative committee. And that is right and important so. The green district councilor Ulrike Heucken remains obstinate, requests a "Special meeting Mollath / Kulac" (in the meantime also reopening was requested in the case Ulvi Kulac), supplies the 16 colleagues in the district parliament with comprehensive materials to the traps and pushes nevertheless again on a wall of the silence: "That is none of our business!
The Grunen politician concludes that the wall of silence referred to still stands. "Why are the statements of a Mr. Leipzig and the former Mrs. Mollaths still believed unreservedly and completely uncritically?? And why is it that not a single other district councillor feels obliged to provide clarification here??", Losche asks.
In an interview with Telepolis, Heucken reports on a bizarre reassessment of the district president’s response to motions she had submitted to the district parliament in the Mollath case.
According to this, Denzler has pointed out to the district councilor in writing and orally the paragraph 120 StGB (prisoner liberation). Heucken had only asked in a motion to examine the release of Mollath and to work out appropriate proposals for a solution. The hint of Denzler could be understood as a kind of threat.
Denzler could not be reached in response to an inquiry from Telepolis, but Werner Roder, managing director of the Upper Franconia district, commented on the accusations. He said that Denzler’s remark had only been meant ironically. He also firmly rejected Losche’s criticism. He said that the board of directors had dealt intensively with the criticism of the clinic, and that there was also close communication with Leipzig. After all, there had been an inspection by the Ministry of Social Affairs and nothing had been objected to. Mr. Losche mixed up justice, court decisions and the placement of Mollath.
Regarding the non-response to the Telepolis inquiry, Roder said he could not imagine that the clinic had not been willing to provide the name of a contact person and not to answer the inquiry. But if that was the case "that is not in order", said Roder.
Former public prosecutor Gabriele Wolff, who repeatedly comments on the Mollath case on her blog, also observes the behavior of the supervising authorities. She asks:
I would be interested to know how a conflict between technical supervision (Ministry of Social Affairs) and service supervision (district administration) is resolved: who ultimately prevails?? The question of a suspension could only be decided by the supervisory authority, but it had to be pronounced by the service supervisory authority. And if the refuses?