Forced Psychiatric Treatment - U.S.

[SilverbladeTE]

Alex
agreed!


general response to all:
PREVENTION is VASTLY better than cure in that arena above all others.
Removal of harmful substances, like lead, from the environment of growing children does much better than all the damn asylums have ever done.

Only those of extreme risk to others, and limited degree of those who're "troubled" need committed.
People in general simply do not realize the incredible abuse that went on, and if they do, do not see the diabolically twisted form it's going now: you don't need branding irons and gas chambers to be bloody evil, it's sometimes worse when it's subtle and seems like a good idea.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

And since we don't understand what the hell is truly the matter with the majority of mental illnesses, talk of "treatment" is ludicrous. best that can be done for many is actually a stable, stress free life and/or trial and error drug treatments.

As noted before, personally I've suffered severe anxiety issues due to crap as a kid, plus who knows what living in such a polluted area has done.
This damn illness has robbed me of most of the ways of dealing with the anxiety: fishing, walks in the woods, exercise etc.
IMHO, the real reason alcoholism is such a problem here in Scotland is anxiety and similar from 200 odd years of near slavery in slum conditions much of the populace went through, epigenetics of that, low sunlight due to climate, a twisted Empire that repressed the normal warm ways of the people resulting in a populace very messed up turning to alcohol to self medicate.

 

[vamah]

Intervening to stop someone harming themselves is surely a valid intent ? The fact that most mental illhealth doesn’t involve direct violence to self or others doesn’t make concern for the occurrence of violence invalid. The families of both the victims and aggressors of the thousand plus murders carried out each year in the US by people with a diagnosable mental illness – http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/problem/consequences-of-non-treatmentwould no doubt welcome greater preventative interventions.

I think it is also wrong to say that very little of what psychiatry does is not based on solid science. Much of what psychiatry as a medical discipline does is arguably not psychiatry but manipulation of brain chemistry, which may be a blunt tool but probably has the same level of scientific validity as most other drug interventions.

If the DSM were the only reference then I guess there would be a need for serious concern, but mandated treatment in the US is a legal process involving a judge and legal representation for the patient. I’m sure there should be better safeguards in the system, but where the alternatives are complete degradation of life for those who experience psychiatric crisis, the Federal appropriation seems pretty sensible.

I don't disagree with you about helping people who suffer from severe mental illness that makes them a danger to themselves, even if not to others. I just worry that it is a slippery slope to forcing people who have moderate levels of problems like anxiety and depression into taking medications or participating in therapy, that has disturbing side effects and is of questionable efficacy -- INSTEAD of addressing physical illness that may be causing those symptoms. I am not against psychiatric medication in general. I take it myself. But I retain the right to stop taking if I choose and I make clear to my doctors that I consider it symptom treatment, not a cure. Right now the US has fairly good protection against unreasonable psychiatric commitment. But I worry, with the gvernment taking more and more control over health care, that those rights will be eroded in the name of saving money and "helping" those of us who are too stupid (in the government's view) to know what's good for us.

 

[Little Bluestem]

This program is called Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC). [Emphasis mine]

I don’t think it has anything to do with providing services to veterans, or anyone else, who want and need it.

P.S. I wonder how many veterans could have been helped with the money that has been spent on incarcerating Justina Pelletier, including the associated judicial circus.

 

[natasa778]

As a distant observer I don't see anything theoretically wrong with this law, apart from the fact that it has huge potential for abuse, and gives lots of power to potentially sociopathic shrinks.

 

[SOC]

...apart from the fact that it has huge potential for abuse, and gives lots of power to potentially sociopathic shrinks.

Which history has shown to be a HUGE problem. It's not like we have to guess whether such abuse could happen. Rampant abuse existed before we had laws in place severely limiting involuntary psychiatric commitment which is why laws controlling it were first written.

It's never wise to allow a person to control someone else for "their own good". Abuse invariably occurs. "Their own good" rapidly becomes "my own good". Protecting people from themselves is questionable in a free society. If we're free, we're free to make poor choices along with good ones.

Protecting the public from dangerous people is another matter. The pendulum has probably swung too far in the direction of not committing those who are violent.