Talk:Involuntary treatment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Start	This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance assessment scale

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Ethics

Contents 1 thank you 2 Suggest merge with involuntary commitment 3 24.55.228.56 -- please stop vandalizing 4 using TAC & Torrey as sources 5 categorisation 6 please, editors -- somebody step in re 24.55 7 merged 8 This is not a neutral article 9 Involuntary treatment is disgusting.

[edit] thank you

Thanks for your assistance in organizing this. I hope more material gets added. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggest merge with involuntary commitment

The topics covered on this page overlap with involuntary commitment. Perhaps a merger would centralize the information discoverd. Andrew73 14:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Especially since psychiatric conditions are not the only conditions for which involuntary treatment is used. Tuberculosis treatment, for example, is generally not optional. - Nunh-huh 04:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent example -- tuberculosis is indeed a special case where public safety trumps individual rights. However, for all non-contagious physical illnesses patients have the right to refuse treatment. That right is stripped from those deemed mentally ill even though mental illness is merely a subjective judgment. The double standard is worth exploring and is worthy of its own article. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 05:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 24.55.228.56 -- please stop vandalizing

If you object to some article content, then make your case. Stop just erasing anything you don't like. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] using TAC & Torrey as sources

Torrey is notorious for twisting statistics to suit his purposes but I note that pretty much every pro-psychiatry editor ends up relying on his www.psychlaws.org

Does anybody have any UNBIASED sources glorifying forced drugging? Trotting out Torrey & TAC over and over again is really getting old. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] categorisation

I have removed the article from category:mental health as this is the parent category for category: Mental health law in which the article is already placed along with being in category: Psychiatry.--Vincej 05:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] please, editors -- somebody step in re 24.55

This editor is pretty offensive and just deletes anything he doesn't like. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I've contacted wiki help by email because I gather RFCs don't apply to anonymous posters. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] merged

I have merged Psychiatric imprisonment into Involuntary commitment. Since the Involuntary Commitment article is now longer it ought not be merged with Involuntary treatment. Therefore I removed the merge tag. —Cesar Tort 03:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is not a neutral article

In the United States is not possible to involuntarily treat someone over time without a court order. In my state the process is the following: If the person is a danger to himself or other, it is possible to put him into an involuntary hold if a qualified person (two police officers, or one psychiatrist, or one psychologist) is willing to certify that the person is a danger to himself or others. Then, if a certified category of professionals signing the document, the person is taken to the nearest hospital and held for 72 hours for evaluation by a psychiatrist or psychologist.

After that period of time, the person is either released or the hospital must get a court order to involuntarily commit and/or treat the person for a term of no longer than six months. This is accomplished by the court appointing two independent practitioners (either psychologists or psychiatrists) to reevaluate the person and submit their reports to the ordering judge. The judge then makes the decision whether to commit the person or not. The hospital or treatment must be the least restrictive treatment available. This in practice is rarely the state hospital.

At the end of six months, if the person is still hospitalized/treated, the judge will appoint two psychiatrists/psychologists to reevaluate whether the person needs continued hospitalization and/or treatment. Subsequently, the person must be reevaluated at least one a year for the entire term of hospitalization.

Remember, since the sixties, when the Civil Liberties Association won a Supreme Court ruling that a person cannot be involuntarily committed or treated, all of the states have shut down the majority of their state hospitals. Therefore, there is little available space to hospitalize and treat even those who clearly need it. My state, which had over twenty state psychiatric hospitals in the sixties, now has only one. This article does not explain the reality of the situation. After the state hospitals closed down the numbers of homeless in the United States increased. --Mattisse 13:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the tone of the article is somewhat against involuntary treatment and could be rewritten in this respect as many people do believe that this is necessary although there is also an strong libertarian argument against. May I just add also that we need to ensure that the article has an international perspective too. --Vince 08:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that it's disgusting the way people encoarage involuntary treatment. In general, the only people who have to deal with involuntary treatment are people who are mentally ill, or minors with autism related disorders. But no one ever asks them what they think. Involuntary treatment is such a traumatizing expirience. It makes you seriously consider running away from home. I hope that someday soon they make involuntary treatment illegal for good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.27.55 (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Involuntary treatment is disgusting.

I myself have gone down the depressing inhumane road of involuntary treatment. I cannot believe that anyone would actually justify it. I have a condition on the autism spectrum, and I was miserable and depressed everytime I was medicated. I hope people someday realize just how bad it is to be forcibly drugged the way that I was.

rebuttal to the comment above I work in the mental health field in CA. Involuntary treatment is most definitely a serious violation of a person's civil rights and must be taken very seriously as such. However, the writer above and other "absolute" opponents do not make suggestion of an alternative for individuals who become temporarily unable to make rational decisions--and that state of mind does occur. My observation is that the alternative becomes jail--a much more poorly regulated involuntary confinement. How do we prevent suicide in a determined individual without temporary involuntary treatment? How do we give a person with paranoia an opportunity to make an informed decision about his/her options if we do not obtain a Reese and give them medications to curb the paranoia so that they can understand no one is stalking, poisoning or otherwise harming them? I am profoundly grateful to be working at a time when patients' civil rights are monitored closely. I agree that a person has the right to choose the symptoms of the illness over the side-effects of the medication, but society has an obligation to give them the opportunity to experience the difference, to make an informed decision. After that, their behavior is legitimately the pervue of law enforcement, before then to use jail is an even greater violation of their civil rights. 216.102.9.150 (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)linclink

That’s bullshit. Stopping Prison People from committing suicide is important, but all you have to do is tranquilize them and by the time they come to you can have them in a straight jacket. And then you say that patient’s Rights is closely monitored, but you seem to make an exception for minors. Namely, autistic minors, or minors with ADD, ADHD, Down’s syndrome and many others. Often times, there is not even a medically diagnosed problem with the child. Involuntary Treatment is like a battle that is fought in your own mind. Most kids just let the medication take over and the few that don’t may eventually fail. Even if they don’t fail, they are still left with Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. And if you think that presenting the criminals the way they are is wrong, so you just drug them until they act the way you want them to act. If they are guilty, they should go to jail. If it is temporary insanity, they should have come to their senses a long time ago. Overall, if you make people take drugs to hide the things that are wrong with them, you are not changing the kids. The medication acts as a façade. The medicated individual will no longer be the same individual. The medication will put a completely different person out there in the world while the the person the individual is without the medication is locked up in his/her own subconscious. And if that is not disgusting, I don’t know what is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.139.17 (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)