The only recent examples I can think of of "government-appointed psychologists says [blah]" that would even get close would be in high profile court cases, where it's really court-appointed psychologists.
I agree with you - it's rare to see this abused these days. Though I remember a particular nasty case from my childhood - a man in Oslo was committed with a diagnosis of paranoid delusions in 1971 after having been involved in a political struggle related to a school closure. His claims about violations of various laws in the process intended to close down the school were used as evidence of his supposed delusions. He was not released from the hospital until 1985. At which point he refused to leave the hospital, and camped outside it until near his death in 1996, while campaigning to have his diagnosis reversed.
The utterly bizarre situation was that he insisted that if the diagnosis stood, then he should be admitted, but the hospital refused - claiming he was too well to be admitted even voluntarily, while still insisting he still suffered from paranoid delusions.
In 1988 an investigation indicated that he was likely sane when admitted, though he may at some point later have suffered from mental problems caused or exacerbated by his forced hospitalisation.
In 1995 the relevant government department gave him a formal apology, admitting that the claims he first made in 1968, that was used as evidence of delusions in order to have him forcibly admitted, were in fact true... Nobody were willing to admit that the hospitalisation was politically motivated, but given the fact it's hard to conclude otherwise.
It shows how insidious claims like these could be: Everything he did to fight his hospitalisation and diagnosis was used as additional evidence of his supposed insanity.
I like to think that cases like this doesn't occur anymore..
I agree with you - it's rare to see this abused these days. Though I remember a particular nasty case from my childhood - a man in Oslo was committed with a diagnosis of paranoid delusions in 1971 after having been involved in a political struggle related to a school closure. His claims about violations of various laws in the process intended to close down the school were used as evidence of his supposed delusions. He was not released from the hospital until 1985. At which point he refused to leave the hospital, and camped outside it until near his death in 1996, while campaigning to have his diagnosis reversed.
The utterly bizarre situation was that he insisted that if the diagnosis stood, then he should be admitted, but the hospital refused - claiming he was too well to be admitted even voluntarily, while still insisting he still suffered from paranoid delusions.
In 1988 an investigation indicated that he was likely sane when admitted, though he may at some point later have suffered from mental problems caused or exacerbated by his forced hospitalisation.
In 1995 the relevant government department gave him a formal apology, admitting that the claims he first made in 1968, that was used as evidence of delusions in order to have him forcibly admitted, were in fact true... Nobody were willing to admit that the hospitalisation was politically motivated, but given the fact it's hard to conclude otherwise.
It shows how insidious claims like these could be: Everything he did to fight his hospitalisation and diagnosis was used as additional evidence of his supposed insanity.
I like to think that cases like this doesn't occur anymore..