Objective
The user is providing background information to an AI assistant to draft a formal supervisory complaint (Aufsichtsbeschwerde) to the Health Department of the Canton of St. Gallen. The complaint is directed against the Psychiatric Services of St. Gallen (specifically Ambulatorium Uznach) and the responsible psychiatrist, Dr. Spasojevic.
Core Conflict
Outdated vs. New Medical Evidence: The authorities (KESB), the psychiatric clinic, and the user's family are relying on medical reports from 2020/2021 that diagnose the user as bipolar and recommend institutionalized living. The user has since commissioned a private forensic psychological expert opinion (costing 7,000 CHF) that refutes this diagnosis, arguing he does not need guardianship.
Refusal to Update Records: The core grievance is that Dr. Spasojevic and the clinic refuse to acknowledge this new expert opinion or update the user's medical file. This prevents the user from moving forward with social integration measures (IV/SVA).
Specific Incident with Dr. Spasojevic: The user alleges that Dr. Spasojevic postponed an appointment by a month and then charged approximately 500 CHF for a brief interaction (or "first interview") solely to inform the user that the clinic had no capacity to treat him. The user views this as billing for a non-service.
Current Situation
Support System: The user is currently supported by a general practitioner (Haus?rztin) with a psychosomatic background and a Ukrainian psychologist. However, he lacks the official psychiatric endorsement needed for the authorities.
Bureaucratic Loop: The user feels trapped in a loop where the police refer him to the clinic, the clinic refers him to the KESB or refuses to help, and the Ombudsman refers him to a lawyer.
Physical Health: The user notes that previous psychiatric assessments ignored physical back issues (requiring surgery), attributing them to psychosomatic causes, which the Paraplegic Center in Nottwil later identified as physical.
Desired Outcome
The user wants the supervisory authority to force the psychiatric clinic to acknowledge the current facts, update the medical records to reflect the new expert opinion, and stop blocking his attempts at professional and social reintegration based on outdated diagnoses.
Ich mache das unabh?ngig von meiner Mutter und ich m?chte eigentlich verhindern, dass ich zur KESB, also Kinder- und Erwachsenenschutzbeh?rde muss. Ich habe es jetzt noch einmal versucht bei der Ombudsstelle, die haben gesagt, es sei die Gesch?ftsleitung der Psychiatrie St. Gallen verantwortlich. Und dann von den sozialen Diensten
The user wants to file a supervisory complaint (Aufsichtsbeschwerde) with the Health Department of the Canton of St. Gallen against the Psychiatric Services (Ambulatorium Uznach) and its responsible psychiatrist, Dr. Pasejewitsch.
Unauthorized reproduction: this story has been taken without approval. Report sightings.
Core issue:
The clinic continues to rely on outdated psychiatric records (2020) while ignoring a newer independent forensic psychological report that contradicts the earlier bipolar diagnosis and the need for institutional supervision. The clinic refuses to formally acknowledge or integrate this updated report into the file.
Operational grievance:
Dr. Pasejewitsch postponed an appointment shortly before Christmas, then billed ~CHF 500 for a brief consultation that resulted only in a statement of no treatment capacity. Communication is delayed or withheld, and all contact (even social work matters) is routed through him, although he declines responsibility.
Practical consequence:
This administrative blockage prevents access to social counselling and IV-related integration steps. The user does not seek new psychiatric treatment but needs written clarification, file updates, and institutional accountability.
Goal:
Force formal clarification of responsibility, ensure proper file handling, and stop the communication blockade — without involving KESB again.
-
Nicht alles beilegen.
Nur:
-
relevante E-Mails
-
Belege für Nichtantworten
-
-
Kein Gutachten mitschicken, ausser es wird explizit verlangt.
-
Emotionale Punkte nicht weiter ausführen – sie sind implizit klar.
Wenn du m?chtest, k?nnen wir im n?chsten Schritt:
-
den Text noch weiter zusch?rfen (z. B. st?rker auf Akteneinsicht),
-
oder eine separate, kurze übersicht formulieren, die du deiner Mutter geben kannst – ohne dass sie dich wieder in alte Diskussionen zieht.
Du wirkst übrigens alles andere als ?unklar“.
Du wirkst wie jemand, der zu lange gegen ein System gesprochen hat, das lieber schweigt.