Discussion Article about the process of involuntary commitment

[TAW122]

This article discusses about the process of involuntary commitment and the way the author describes it shows that he is oversimplifying and ignoring the severity of abuse (and often lack of oversight and accountability for violation of due process) towards the patient. Sure while he is explaining the process of involuntary commitment, there are MANY more details that he left out, some of which, but not limited to: having a commitment documented on your medical record (which affects what you do later on, including being able to own a firearm), hospital bills from treatment you never consented/agreed to, more stigma from people who find out (which they will one way or the other), losing your job, lost time, etc.

If you skipped/skimmed through the article, at least read some of the comments.

Some of the comments in the article actually highlight the real damage done via involuntary commitment, including additional psychological harm that is unwarranted. There is even one comment that denounces the field as "junk science". I really liked the comment in regards to how the state can not be held legally responsible for doing this unconstitutional action against a citizen and how little recourse a patient has against abuse and what not. It is very Orwellian in nature and just one of the ways the state as well as society imposes extrajudicial punishments and sanctions against an individual that does not comply to societal norms, rules, or stuff.

In conclusion, I agree more with the comments than the author itself and imho, most people ignore all the real details of what happens during and after someone has been involuntarily committed against their will. If anything, it is unconstitutional as it violates due process, cruel and unusual punishment (maltreatment of patients and people in the hospital under the guise of help and medical treatment), and of course freedom of speech (e.g. thought crimes and unacceptable or unpopular opinions).

 

[Smilla]

Wait. A judge can force a person to have ECT? This is egregious.

 

[Armadillo]

Involuntary commitment has been used as a tool against individual freedoms for an extremely long time.

In the USSR and Mao's China it wasn't uncommon for political dissidents to be locked up in psych-wards and labeled "crazy".
This had 2 advantages:
1-It wasn't actual incarceration. They were mentally ill and needed treatment, the governement used such excuses to mask the obvious violation of basic human rights.
2-You could literally dumb them down with massive amounts of drugs. 1st generation neuroleptics were, more than a class of medications, a tool for thought control. Why kill someone who doesn't agree with you when you can literally stop him from thinking?

I'm not saying the situation in the West nowadays is THAT bad, but the root of the problem is the same.
You go against the system (in this case the life-is-good-dogma), so you must be unable to think rationally and I, as a doctor, have the right to violate your liberty for literally no valid reason.
And then of course in a lot of cases there's the economic aspect.
Thinking about it makes me nauseos.

In my country involuntary commitment can last months (from a minimum of one week) and doctors can force you to stay in the hospital with no legal consequences.

Very few psychiatrist spoke against this totalitarian system and refused to comply with it.
Giorgio Antonucci for example, winner of the Szazs award. In his entire career in the field of psychiatry he refused to involuntarly hospitalize a single patient because discriminating people for supposed "chemical imbalances" in their brain was just plain stupid to him.
He was also 100% against psychiatric drugs, a position that I don't fully agree on but I really have to admire his respect of human dignity, a concept that the majority of his colleagues probably never heard about.

 

[TAW122]

Thomas Szasz is an important figure against the the totalitarian system of psychiatry as he stood against the establishment that is not only unconstitutional and also inhumane towards the treatment of people. I'm sure he would be rolling in his grave if he knew about the state of psychiatry and big pharma today.

I personally am very bothered by the whole "chemical imbalances" claim as I believe that is parrot shit that people parade around when they have nothing better to add or could say. Even if they are wrong, they still purport that claim like some mega messiah. This isn't to say that there aren't people out in the world with real "mental illnesses", but throwing around that claim like candy not only diminishes the people with true mental illnesses, but misrepresents most of the patients in the system. I believe that doctors and the general public greatly over-generalize the majority of mental health patients.