CFB Edmonton nurse charged with trafficking steroids

[George Wallace]

........... 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]

:goodpost:

 

[Fishbone Jones]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

 

[RCDtpr]

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]

Did everyone miss this part?

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?

 

[Pieman]

  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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.