# CFB Edmonton nurse charged with trafficking steroids



## OldSolduer (28 Sep 2013)

Check this out.

 http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/nurse-at-edmonton-military-base-charged-with-trafficking-steroids-1.1474270

Mods, move it if required.


----------



## Old EO Tech (28 Sep 2013)

Wouldn't surprise me to see some NDA 130 charges come out of this as well, she wasn't likely trafficking steroids to the general public while on the base :-/

Jon


----------



## MedCorps (28 Sep 2013)

She is a public service nurse and not a CF Nursing Officer as such the NDA will be likely not be used. 

MC


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2013)

I think Old EO Tech meant that her customer list likely includes some CF members who will be charged in due course, as the investigation goes on.


----------



## MedCorps (28 Sep 2013)

Fair enough... Agreed.  I reckon the NIS will no doubt be quite interested in the company she kept from the CAF nominal roll.  

MC


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Sep 2013)

Notwithstanding that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty; suffice it to say I'm not surprised. I'll keep the rest of what I know or suspect to myself.


----------



## Nudibranch (29 Sep 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Notwithstanding that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty; suffice it to say I'm not surprised. I'll keep the rest of what I know or suspect to myself.



This is the same person?:
http://www.bodybuildinglive.com/profiles/helen_bouchard.htm
http://muscle-insider.com/photos/cbbf-nationals-edmonton-guest-poser-helen-bouchard

If yes, steroid use would be no surprise, of course. But trafficking? That's just dumb


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Sep 2013)

Here's the CF Info-machine's version:


> .... a public service primary care nurse was arrested and charged with drug-related offences as part of an investigation by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS) National Drug Enforcement Team (NDET) into illegal steroid trafficking.
> 
> Following a thorough investigation, Helene Bouchard, a civilian nurse, at 3rd Canadian Division Support Base Edmonton was charged with four counts of Trafficking of a controlled substance pursuant to section 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA).
> 
> ...


----------



## Old EO Tech (30 Sep 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think Old EO Tech meant that her customer list likely includes some CF members who will be charged in due course, as the investigation goes on.



Yes that is what I meant.  As a PS employee she would not be charged under the NDA unless she was serving over seas.  But her customers, that is another story....

Jon


----------



## Lightguns (30 Sep 2013)

Nudibranch said:
			
		

> This is the same person?:
> http://www.bodybuildinglive.com/profiles/helen_bouchard.htm
> http://muscle-insider.com/photos/cbbf-nationals-edmonton-guest-poser-helen-bouchard
> 
> If yes, steroid use would be no surprise, of course. But trafficking? That's just dumb



What's with Mr Cadpat in the background? A customer working off his debt?


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Sep 2013)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> What's with Mr Cadpat in the background? A customer working off his debt?


If this is the same woman ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uznPvhGE1Lg
.... there's more than just a _bit_ of military theme in her body building.


----------



## Lightguns (30 Sep 2013)

So she's a "soldier" junkie.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Sep 2013)

Nudibranch said:
			
		

> This is the same person?:
> http://www.bodybuildinglive.com/profiles/helen_bouchard.htm
> http://muscle-insider.com/photos/cbbf-nationals-edmonton-guest-poser-helen-bouchard
> 
> If yes, steroid use would be no surprise, of course. But trafficking? That's just dumb



Sexy pictures, I wish I was  half as jacked as her.  


I got super-poison ivy and was put on steroids but I never developed muscles like that.


----------



## Nemo888 (30 Sep 2013)

Definitely looks like she was dipping into the super soldier formula herself. Do you think her 17" arms gave her away?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (30 Sep 2013)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Yes that is what I meant.  As a PS employee she would not be charged under the NDA unless she was serving over seas.  But her customers, that is another story....
> 
> Jon



As I understand it, taking or buying steroids is not illegal - but selling them are


----------



## Container (30 Sep 2013)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> As I understand it, taking or buying steroids is not illegal - but selling them are



Seeking to purchase and buying are illegal. Possession is not. It's an offence to seek out the substance or a prescription for a schedule IV substance.

I knew this individual years ago from her work. She's a fantastic person.....outside of this allegation.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Sep 2013)

I thought the loop hole (so to speak) was that while possession of steroids is not illegal it *is* a controlled substance and CF members are not allowed to be in possession of a _controlled substance_ without a prescription ergo a CF member in possession of steroids is a chargeable offense.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (30 Sep 2013)

I was picking up T3s at the Pharm O in Edmonton today, and I asked if I could have a side of Vitamin S.

Apparently it is, in fact, too soon.....


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (30 Sep 2013)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I was picking up T3s at the Pharm O in Edmonton today, and I asked if I could have a side of Vitamin S.
> 
> Apparently it is, in fact, too soon.....



Dark sense of humour, I like it!


----------



## Strike (2 Oct 2013)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I was picking up T3s at the Pharm O in Edmonton today, and I asked if I could have a side of Vitamin S.
> 
> Apparently it is, in fact, too soon.....



Well, at least you didn't ask for that in the CDU!  When I checked the link I knew exactly who she was.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Oct 2013)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I was picking up T3s at the Pharm O in Edmonton today, and I asked if I could have a side of Vitamin S.
> 
> Apparently it is, in fact, too soon.....


 :rofl:


----------



## RubberTree (24 May 2014)

Miss Bouchard is back in the news and has admitted selling steroids to undercover MPs. The story is here:

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/touch/story.html?id=9868650

But what I found interesting is this quote from her... 

"I made a horrible mistake,” she said. “I foolishly did not understand how wrong it was to do this. I foolishly allowed my PTSD to cloud my judgment."


----------



## vonGarvin (24 May 2014)

There it is...PTSD.


I swear that I'm the only member to deploy to not get PTSD.


----------



## GAP (24 May 2014)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> There it is...PTSD.
> 
> 
> I swear that I'm the only member to deploy to not get PTSD.



Feeling left out?   

Yeah, I look around from my own generation and,  though I hear about it occasionally, I can't evoke any of the issues talked about.  :dunno:


----------



## George Wallace (24 May 2014)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> There it is...PTSD.
> 
> 
> I swear that I'm the only member to deploy to not get PTSD.



Ah!  But you do.  You just have not been diagnosed with it yet.   >


----------



## medicineman (24 May 2014)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> There it is...PTSD.
> 
> 
> I swear that I'm the only member to deploy to not get PTSD.



Maybe you're just better at channeling or coping with it?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 May 2014)

MM why is your font so small?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 May 2014)

Guys,

Do I have to repeat myself yet again? PTSD is a medical diagnosis. One that is made by professionals in that field. There are checks and balances throughout the process that must be adhered to. Those professionals have the experience and the tests to weed out, in most cases, who really has it and who doesn't.

So, once again, I'll ask that you please stop making armchair quarterback assessments of someone else's medical conditions, without having the degrees, professional status, clinical input and access to med files.

Does she have it? I don't know, however I'm not going to discount it because (1) I don't know her, (2) I am not a physician, (3) I am not within the scope of the investigation to try figure out why she did what she did.

Don't have it yourselves. Good for you Superman. Lots do. They acknowledge the fact and are seeking help to try get straight.

I'll fall back to what George said:



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Ah!  But you do.  You just have not been diagnosed with it yet.   >



However, I'm not joking about it. Next person that questions someone's medical diagnosis without first hand, medical knowledge of the case, goes on the ladder.

And if you do have that knowledge, I'll probably ban you for disclosing personal medical information vis a vis, patient\ med practitioner confidentiality.

I'm tired of repeating myself.

---Staff---


----------



## Towards_the_gap (24 May 2014)

recceguy - 

I'm in no way casting dispersions on anyones specific medical diagnoses, nor am I claiming any medical experience and ability to judge, via the internet, the veracity of anyones claim.

HOWEVER.

Is it such an emotive issue that ANY discussion of the possibility that some individuals would claim a hard-to-diagnose mental health issue as a mitigating factor in the conduct of a crime, is therefore shouted down as 'YOU CANNOT DIAGNOSE PEOPLE' and 'YOU'RE PERPETUATING STEREOTYPES'???

People DO fake PTSD. It's a known fact.  But we've gone so far the other way from 'it's a lack of moral fibre/cowardice' that the minute someone shows up at a CDU with a stress/mental health issue, the big P-T-S-D word gets thrown out immediately. I was eventually diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury but, at first, the burden of proof was on me to show that it wasn't PTSD!!!! I actually had to tell the MO 'No, it's not PTSD' at one point.

But back on point. Without judging anyone or diagnosing anyone, I do find it odd that PTSD was mentioned AFTER an admission of guilt.

Discipline me if you want, but we should be able to talk about this.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (24 May 2014)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Discipline me if you want, but we should be able to talk about this.



I concur completely.  I sense that we are over-diagnosing.  The immediate result of hiring more people whose job it is to diagnose mental health issues is that there are more diagnoses of mental health issues...


----------



## vonGarvin (24 May 2014)

I criticize her use of PTSD as an excuse for criminal behaviour.  That is all.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 May 2014)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> recceguy -
> 
> I'm in no way casting dispersions on anyones specific medical diagnoses, nor am I claiming any medical experience and ability to judge, via the internet, the veracity of anyones claim.
> 
> ...



Discuss it as you will. However, you better have the hard facts to back up your assertions.

Better yet, do you realize how people that have been diagnosed feel every time someone around them, on here, in the mess lumps people, or individuals, together with PTSD as fakers, simply because the accuser says so? It calls into question their own diagnosis. "People will just call me a faker, because they say they weren't affected by the same firefight, IED, accident." So they suffer in silence, because of the ignorant, ill informed people that want to, unwittingly, stigmatize them. 

Then people are asking why the suicides, why aren't people seeking help, why do they quit or refuse to come forward?

A lot of it can be traced back to the fact that, contrary to what everyone says, those that suffer are impinged by their peers.

Also, you can trust me when I tell you it's not simply a matter of *"that the minute someone shows up at a CDU with a stress/mental health issue, the big P-T-S-D word gets thrown out immediately."
*
There is a lengthy process of observation, tests, questionnaires and hours of sessions with professionals to reach the diagnosis. In fact, done properly, a person could have started over a year ago into the process and still not be completely assessed yet.

So go ahead and call her a liar, but be ready to defend yourself if you get called on it.

Discuss the system to your hearts content.

Leave singular and personal accusations and dispersions to yourself. That's the broad 'yourself' not you individually. This and the last post were meant for everyone in the community.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (24 May 2014)

Fair points RG, but I will say this.

I know people who ARE suffering in silence, not because of those doubters, but because they see people who cannot possibly fit the criteria, as laid down in DSM 5 - http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/PTSD%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf who are subsequently awarded nice VAC payouts, SISIP LTD, med discharge etc etc etc....

and think ' I don't want to be lumped in with that group, I'll soldier on'

Isn't that as equally a severe problem as the much maligned stigma?

And I totally concur with TV, the real problem in this case is not whether or not she has PTSD, but the fact that she 'claims' to have it, and only brings it up after she pleads guilty.

Her doctor/social worker/VA case manager didn't come forward with her med docs and state, on record, that she has PTSD.

She just told the press that she does.......


----------



## Strike (24 May 2014)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> And I totally concur with TV, the real problem in this case is not whether or not she has PTSD, but the fact that she 'claims' to have it, and only brings it up after she pleads guilty.



PTSD or not, she contradicts herself, thus using her (possible diagnosis of) PTSD as an excuse.  When she addressed the court she said:



> "I foolishly did not understand how wrong it was to do this. I foolishly allowed my PTSD to cloud my judgment.”



But when she was selling to the MP, it was reported:



> “During the meeting, Bouchard asked Sgt. Boivin not to tell anyone because she did not want to lose her job,” _said an agreed statement of facts_ presented in court.



She agreed to that statement.  So which is it?  Did she know what she was doing was wrong?  Or didn't she?


----------



## Tibbson (24 May 2014)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I criticize her use of PTSD as an excuse for criminal behaviour.  That is all.



Agreed.  One of my CWOs was diagnosed with PTSD years ago and spoke about it openly when someone wanted or needed to talk.  He often said his diagnosis was his diagnosis, not an excuse for his behaviours and he was still responsible for his actions.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 May 2014)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Fair points RG, but I will say this.
> 
> I know people who ARE suffering in silence, not because of those doubters, but because they see people who cannot possibly fit the criteria, as laid down in DSM 5 - http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/PTSD%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf who are subsequently awarded nice VAC payouts, SISIP LTD, med discharge etc etc etc....
> 
> ...



I'll go with that line of thinking. PTSD is not an excuse for behavior. People, properly diagnosed, have the means at their disposal to deal with unethical, dangerous or out of control life factors.

So we'll meet in the middle and say she 'might' have PTSD, but that's not our call. However, the use of real or fictional PTSD is wrong to use as her scapegoat for behavior.

That I can live with.

Cheers.



			
				PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I concur completely.  I sense that we are over-diagnosing.  The immediate result of hiring more people whose job it is to diagnose mental health issues is that there are more diagnoses of mental health issues...



Of course there is more diagnosis. The more people looking and identifying will naturally raise the bar. Just like more infantrymen in the field during a battle will increase the amount of enemy casualties. Or the more cars on the road the more accidents that will happen.

I would, however, not hesitate to ask a MCpl, RSM, Lt or full Col what makes them more qualified to ascertain someone's medical condition and why they would put their own layman's opinion above that of a true professional in the field. Kinda like a politician telling a CO how to deploy troops and run your battle during an engagement.

All that aside, I suppose we could decide not to take the professionals word for it.

You could always use the Brits solution during WWI and order your subordinates to execute, by firing squad, a soldier suffering from shell shock because you didn't believe the Doctors.

Or be like Gen Patton, during WWII, who physically assaulted troops because he didn't believe the Doctors either.

You choose your path and if it's the wrong one, hope it doesn't come back and bite you in the ass because you second guessed a Doctor ten years ago.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (25 May 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Of course there is more diagnosis. The more people looking and identifying will naturally raise the bar. Just like more infantrymen in the field during a battle will increase the amount of enemy casualties. Or the more cars on the road the more accidents that will happen.



At the risk of splitting this thread into it's own entity, I will add that it also seems, within the last 10 years, that there are more people looking for problems when there isn't any. People have been almost been led to believe that you WILL suffer PTSD from a traumatic event, not that you actually only have about a 20% chance of long-term problems.

Example: in the city I work for, there was a particularly bad call a while ago. The critical incident stress team held a 'debriefing'. Guess who was coming forward with claims of 'being affected by it'? 

The people who weren't at the call. Isn't that curious?

I'm not advocating the WWI british approach of shooting shell shock victims, nor am I saying that slapping people will cure it. I'm just saying let's have some balance and accept that not everyone gets PTSD, some people fake it, and some people claim it after they've been an idiot. And perhaps, callling those fakers out and not just blindly accepting everyone who substitutes their own personality disorders for the mental health issue du jour may in fact help those who are suffering in silence. I always say, I don't worry about the people who come out and tell you 'I've got PTSD', I worry about the ones who don't.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (25 May 2014)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> At the risk of splitting this thread into it's own entity, I will add that it also seems, within the last 10 years, that there are more people looking for problems when there isn't any. People have been almost been led to believe that you WILL suffer PTSD from a traumatic event, not that you actually only have about a 20% chance of long-term problems.
> 
> Example: in the city I work for, there was a particularly bad call a while ago. The critical incident stress team held a 'debriefing'. Guess who was coming forward with claims of 'being affected by it'?
> 
> ...



Speaking from experience, dispatchers can be traumatised too. All it takes is a busy call list, not enough available units, and a crystal clear camera feed. I've witnessed 4 brutal suicides, 1 rape, and a murder sitting comfortably in my chair at Public Safety Communications. Did I jump up and claim PTSD? Have I been diagnosed? No. But I did have nightmares and paranoia for many weeks after each incident.

Just because they weren't "there" doesn't mean they can't be affected. Obviously, it depends on how connected they were to the call, I'm sure you can pick out the bullshitters pretty easily but don't discount everyone.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 May 2014)

Strike said:
			
		

> PTSD or not, she contradicts herself, thus using her (possible diagnosis of) PTSD as an excuse.  When she addressed the court she said:
> 
> But when she was selling to the MP, it was reported:
> 
> She agreed to that statement.  So which is it?  Did she know what she was doing was wrong?  Or didn't she?



THIS is what the discussion should center around, vice a  :slapfight: about PTSD.


----------



## medicineman (25 May 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> So we'll meet in the middle and say she 'might' have PTSD, but that's not our call. However, the use of real or fictional PTSD is wrong to use as her scapegoat for behavior.



Thank you for that - I wasn't on when the rest of the discussion happened and it kind of looked as if it were heading in a direction of "don't dog pile on her because of her diagnosis"...the dog pile was her not owning up to her actions which were obviously premeditated and with full cognizance of the possible repercussions of those actions.  Hopefully the court of public opinion will see that as well.

MM


----------



## George Wallace (25 May 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> ........... she 'might' have PTSD, but that's not our call. However, the use of real or fictional PTSD is wrong to use as her scapegoat for behavior.




This is the central piece to this discussion.  I don't think any of us are making the call whether or not she has PTSD, as much as we are tired of hearing of someone getting caught in a criminal act and then crying out that they have PTSD as an excuse for committing that act.   Many of us are looking at this as more of a lack of morals and ethics on her part.

We know that PTSD is a serious problem, and that many suffer in silence.  Actions by people who are caught having committed criminal acts and then use PTSD as an excuse, rightfully or falsely, in my opinion hurts the cause more than it helps.   As was pointed out, she knew that what she was doing was wrong and admitted that by telling her clients not to say anything.  Once arrested, she claims PTSD.  That use of PTSD as her scapegoat for her behavior, in the hopes of leniency,  is what many of us are looking at as offensive.

It is now up to the Court and Medical professionals to clear up the matter of whether or not she is suffering PTSD.   In the meantime, she has been caught in a criminal act and charged.


----------



## Tibbson (25 May 2014)

:goodpost:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 May 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> This is the central piece to this discussion.  I don't think any of us are making the call whether or not she has PTSD, as much as we are tired of hearing of someone getting caught in a criminal act and then crying out that they have PTSD as an excuse for committing that act.   Many of us are looking at this as more of a lack of morals and ethics on her part.
> 
> We know that PTSD is a serious problem, and that many suffer in silence.  Actions by people who are caught having committed criminal acts and then use PTSD as an excuse, rightfully or falsely, in my opinion hurts the cause more than it helps.   As was pointed out, she knew that what she was doing was wrong and admitted that by telling her clients not to say anything.  Once arrested, she claims PTSD.  That use of PTSD as her scapegoat for her behavior, in the hopes of leniency,  is what many of us are looking at as offensive.
> 
> It is now up to the Court and Medical professionals to clear up the matter of whether or not she is suffering PTSD.   In the meantime, she has been caught in a criminal act and charged.



Thanks for expanding on, exactly, what I already said in one sentence.


----------



## Pieman (26 May 2014)

I ask those here to consider there is a possibility of truth in what she is saying. It is probable that if in treatment for PTSD then there is normally medication involved in the healing process. Medications that do effect the brain and can be extremely powerful. The side effect of many of these medications are not fully understood, as there are normally low numbers of trials for medications simply because a low percentage of the population is treated for PTSD.

Her behavior did not seem to correspond with someone who put much thought into the whole process, and does not seem fully rational. Selling directly from her office. Sending pictures of drugs she intents to sell over the phone. She either lacks two brain cells to rub together or simply does not care, or even wants to get caught.  That's my own interpretation of the little data I have here. 

Sub similar, those who say they are faking PTSD to get money among their own friends/troops. Consider the possibility they may be saying that as a form of denial. They would rather appear to be devious and tell people they are cheating the system rather than admit they have a problem. It's their way of dealing with it. A lie to others and themselves as a way to get themselves to go. Don't underestimate the lengths people will go to hide a problem.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 May 2014)

OR...she was just doing something she shouldn't have been doing, knew it and ended up getting caught.

Yup, it is just as probable she just got caught like any other criminal does.


----------



## Pieman (26 May 2014)

> OR...she was just doing something she shouldn't have been doing, knew it and ended up getting caught.
> 
> Yup, it is just as probable she just got caught like any other criminal does.



This line of thinking conveniently ignores a number of potential factors. Such as, is this a radical change in behavior for this person? Given the position, rank, education of the woman the odds are more likely she hasn't engaged in this kind of activity in the past. So simply applying a broad label of a criminal to her doesn't negate the claim.


----------



## RCDtpr (26 May 2014)

The factors are irrelevant....she committed a crime and was caught.

The fact that you think someone's education level or job means she probably hasn't committed crimes in the past is laughable......very laughable.


----------



## Pieman (26 May 2014)

> The factors are irrelevant....she committed a crime and was caught.



The factors are relevant and will be taken into consideration within her trial. One factor will be whether or not her medical state was a factor in her actions.



> The fact that you think someone's education level or job means she probably hasn't committed crimes in the past is laughable......very laughable.



Dominantly within any given population, those who have a secure job, and are educated are significantly less likely to engage in illegal activity. There is still of course a percentage of those within that population who do commit crimes but it's a lot lower. So what exactly is laughable about that?


----------



## RCDtpr (26 May 2014)

While I admire the fact you've read a book or two.....in the real world crimes are committed by people with education and good jobs all the time...crimes you wouldn't expect either.  Theft is VERY commonly committed by well off people and when I ask them why they did it the answer is either "I don't know" or "for the thrill"

I'm speaking from real world experience when I say that ones social, economic, or educational status don't mean much when it comes to crimes being committed.

As for factors being factored in during trial.....typically that's only for sentencing and have no bearing on a finding of guilt.


----------



## Pieman (26 May 2014)

I may have read a book or two, but that doesn't mean I don't have real world experience. I have my time rolling in the mud as well.



> I'm speaking from real world experience when I say that ones social, economic, or educational status don't mean much when it comes to crimes being committed.



I have no doubt, but I am indicating that this is a smaller percentage of the population. The person in question was indicating that her PTSD was a factor in her actions and decision making during that time. 



> As for factors being factored in during trial.....typically that's only for sentencing and have no bearing on a finding of guilt.


Yes. She hasn't denied her actions, rather indicated her actions are abnormal for her due to a medical condition.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 May 2014)

RCDcpl said:
			
		

> While I admire the fact you've read a book or two.....in the real world crimes are committed by people with education and good jobs all the time...crimes you wouldn't expect either.  Theft is VERY commonly committed by well off people and when I ask them why they did it the answer is either "I don't know" or "for the thrill"
> 
> I'm speaking from real world experience when I say that ones social, economic, or educational status don't mean much when it comes to crimes being committed.
> 
> As for factors being factored in during trial.....typically that's only for sentencing and have no bearing on a finding of guilt.





			
				RCDcpl said:
			
		

> The factors are irrelevant....she committed a crime and was caught.
> 
> The fact that you think someone's education level or job means she probably hasn't committed crimes in the past is laughable......very laughable.



Time to back off the smarmy comments and just stick to the discussion.


----------



## vonGarvin (26 May 2014)

crim·i·nal
ˈkrimənl
noun
1.
a person who has committed a crime.


----------



## RCDtpr (26 May 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Time to back off the smarmy comments and just stick to the discussion.



Not really sure what comments you're referring to, nor do I see where I deviated from the discussion that was ongoing....


----------



## Bzzliteyr (26 May 2014)

Did everyone miss this part?



			
				Strike said:
			
		

> PTSD or not, she contradicts herself, thus using her (possible diagnosis of) PTSD as an excuse.  When she addressed the court she said:
> 
> "I foolishly did not understand how wrong it was to do this. I foolishly allowed my PTSD to cloud my judgment.”
> 
> ...


----------



## Pieman (26 May 2014)

> Did she know what she was doing was wrong?  Or didn't she?


We didn't miss it as It is the crux of the discussion here. She indicated her ability to understand the implications and severity of her actions was clouded by her medical condition. She actually never claimed she didn't know it was wrong. It brings it into a bit of a grey area of being responsible for the actions taken verses the mental state of the person due to the effects of a medical condition.


----------



## Strike (26 May 2014)

Pieman said:
			
		

> We didn't miss it as It is the crux of the discussion here. She indicated her ability to understand the implications and severity of her actions was clouded by her medical condition.



Yes, she only did this AFTER she got caught (blamed her illness).  If you were to read higher up in the article she openly admitted to the MP that she was selling to that she could lose her job if found out, inferring that she was well aware that she knew she was doing wrong.  She's trying to rationalize her actions in order to garner some sympathy.  Sorry, but I don't buy it.

By the way, I know several people in the medical field that are completely dumb, my mother-in-law (a former RN) being one of them.  Level of education means absolutely nothing.


----------



## Pieman (26 May 2014)

> If you were to read higher up in the article she openly admitted to the MP that she was selling to that she could lose her job if found out, inferring that she was well aware that she knew she was doing wrong.



I did read that. As I just indicated she did not claim she did not know what she was doing was wrong. Rather, she indicated her judgement was clouded by her medical condition. 



> She's trying to rationalize her actions in order to garner some sympathy. Sorry, but I don't buy it.


I'm not sure it's for sale. You may very well be correct that she is simply trying to garner sympathy. Then again, she may be telling the truth in that her medical condition is influencing her. Neither of us are in a position to find out either way. 



> By the way, I know several people in the medical field that are completely dumb, my mother-in-law (a former RN) being one of them.  Level of education means absolutely nothing.



I was indicating that level of education and job has an effect on the probability someone is involved with criminal activity within a population. Never said anything about how 'smart' or 'dumb' a person is verses education and associating that with criminal activity somehow. Sounds like you might be a tad biased towards your mother in law.


----------



## medicineman (26 May 2014)

People who have judgement "clouded by a medical condition" don't show the insight to tell someone to keep what they're doing on the down low because they might lose their job - their judgement is clouded, granted, but likely more by greed and/or personality problems than their illness.  In my opinion, I think that is where the crux of the issue lies - her insight seems/ed pretty intact.

There is more than meets the eye here...and IAW site guidelines, etc,  I'm not going to give my differential diagnosis list.

op:

MM


----------



## Pieman (26 May 2014)

> People who have judgement "clouded by a medical condition" don't show the insight to tell someone to keep what they're doing on the down low because they might lose their job - their judgement is clouded, granted, but likely more by greed and/or personality problems than their illness.  In my opinion, I think that is where the crux of the issue lies - her insight seems/ed pretty intact.



Certainly possible. I am interpreting the rather blatant and clumsy attempts to hide her actions as some form of a cry for help. Kind of like how a person who is intent on suicide will start handing out gifts to friends and may even tell people of their plan to commit the act. etc. However, this is slipping into speculation which is not helpful. I agree with the popcorn avatar, we will have to wait and see what happens at this point.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 May 2014)

Pieman said:
			
		

> Certainly possible. I am interpreting the rather blatant and clumsy attempts to hide her actions as some form of a cry for help. Kind of like how a person who is intent on suicide will start handing out gifts to friends and may even tell people of their plan to commit the act. etc. However, this is slipping into speculation which is not helpful. I agree with the popcorn avatar, we will have to wait and see what happens at this point.



I am starting to wonder if you don't know this person or something.  You don't seem to be willing to consider the flip side of the coin;  she knew what she was doing, knew it was wrong and made efforts to ensure it wasn't uncovered, took a chance, got caught and is now playing the PTSD card as a mitigating factor to lessen the impact her illegal actions will have on the remainder of her life and career.


----------



## Tibbson (26 May 2014)

Pieman said:
			
		

> This line of thinking conveniently ignores a number of potential factors. Such as, is this a radical change in behavior for this person? Given the position, rank, education of the woman the odds are more likely she hasn't engaged in this kind of activity in the past. So simply applying a broad label of a criminal to her doesn't negate the claim.



After the long career I've had I can provide you an extensive list of high ranking, well educated or otherwise well behaved individuals who have run afoul of the law without any PTSD issues.  Some of them may have been diagnosed or not as well but none of the factors you note have any bearing on their likelihood to commit a crime.


----------



## Strike (26 May 2014)

Pieman said:
			
		

> Certainly possible. I am interpreting the rather blatant and clumsy attempts to hide her actions as some form of a cry for help.



Or maybe she was just dumb.  As per my previous post, just because someone is edumacted in a respected field doesn't make them smart.  My opinion is that people who juice aren't always the smartest to begin with, I don't care how careful they are with their dosages.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 May 2014)

RCDcpl said:
			
		

> Not really sure what comments you're referring to, nor do I see where I deviated from the discussion that was ongoing....





			
				RCDcpl said:
			
		

> *While I admire the fact you've read a book or two.....in the real world *crimes are committed by people with education and good jobs all the time...crimes you wouldn't expect either.  Theft is VERY commonly committed by well off people and when I ask them why they did it the answer is either "I don't know" or "for the thrill"
> 
> I'm speaking from real world experience when I say that ones social, economic, or educational status don't mean much when it comes to crimes being committed.
> 
> As for factors being factored in during trial.....typically that's only for sentencing and have no bearing on a finding of guilt.





			
				RCDcpl said:
			
		

> The factors are irrelevant....she committed a crime and was caught.
> 
> The fact that you think someone's education level or job means she probably hasn't committed crimes in the past* is laughable......very laughable.*



You're talking about another poster's opinion. No need for the sarcasm. I simply told you to knock it off and just stay with the discussion without the peanut gallery remarks.

You may have thought you were being subtle enough that no one would notice. You were wrong. 

And don't turn this into a bun fight.

---Staff---


----------



## ModlrMike (26 May 2014)

I admit I'm having trouble reconciling "don't tell anyone because I'll lose my job" with "I didn't know what I was doing". Medical condition or not it strains the bounds of credulity.


----------



## medicineman (26 May 2014)

Pieman said:
			
		

> Certainly possible. I am interpreting the rather blatant and clumsy attempts to hide her actions as some form of a cry for help.



Anyone committing that sort of crime will blatantly try to cover it up...doesn't make it a cry for help.  If she were giving this stuff away, yeah, I might buy that.  However, this lady was selling the stuff.  From a clinical point of view, I see someone who obviously didn't think they'd get caught, much less charged.  There are more than a few folks involved with steroid abuse and trafficking which are in utter disbelief, when caught, that they've actually done anything wrong, since they're so wrapped up in themselves and think that the laws weren't written for them.

MM


----------



## Tibbson (26 May 2014)

I'll be interested in seeing the results from the professional investigation by the College of Nurses and how any of her statement to the court may or may not impact upon their determinations and sanctions.


----------



## OldSolduer (26 May 2014)

She  alone is responsible for her actions and must be held to account for them. We have far too much "I had a bad childhood" BS among other excuses for criminal behaviour.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 May 2014)

Any person who has served and their lawyer doesn't try to use the PTSD card needs to find a new lawyer............it has taken the place of "I'm ADHD" as the "get a lower sentence" card.
Get used to hearing it a lot more....................


----------



## Pieman (27 May 2014)

> I am starting to wonder if you don't know this person or something.  You don't seem to be willing to consider the flip side of the coin;  she knew what she was doing, knew it was wrong and made efforts to ensure it wasn't uncovered, took a chance, got caught and is now playing the PTSD card as a mitigating factor to lessen the impact her illegal actions will have on the remainder of her life and career.



I don't know this person, and I fail to see just because I have a different opinion than yours would indicate ulterior motives on my part. Perhaps now I'm starting to wonder you know this person and don't like her, so are inclined to take any stance that will put her in the worst light. See how I did that?

I have considered the 'flip side' (which seems to be the opinion of the vast majority posting here) and rejected it based upon the view points I have outlined in my first post. I presented my thoughts as an alternative look at the situation. I feel no need to repeat them, so please go back and have a look if unclear.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Dec 2014)

Bumped with the latest:


> A nurse at the Canadian Forces Base Edmonton hospital who lost her job as a result of selling steroids to soldiers had her sentence appeal shot down Tuesday.
> 
> Helene Bouchard -- a 50-year-old ex-soldier and retired competitive bodybuilder -- was fined $1,500 in June after earlier pleading guilty to charges of trafficking in steroids and attempting to export a controlled substance.
> 
> ...


----------

