Jump to content

Talk:Involuntary treatment

kotetsu131 (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
In my province, a person can be sentenced to forced injections of Risperdal for three years at a time. A psychiatrist told me that they usually ask for three years [sentence duration] and sometimes ask for renewals. It is done even to people who clearly don't need it.
The reason some people who were released from psychiatry became homeless is because they were forced to take drugs that caused them brain damage, like tardive dyskinesia [1], and therefore they had difficulty finding jobs. I met a beggar who told me he was recently released from prison. I don't know of anyone who has argued that because people released from prisons become beggars, therefore they should be kept in prison. --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I disagree. The article is neutral. In reading about psychiatry it is very clear to me that the only people who actually make and believe in the arguement that involuntary treatment of any sort is somehow beneficial are mental health workers themselves. Take a look at http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/ written and founded by a psychiatrist, and then compare it to say http://www.antipsychiatry.org/ written and maintained by former mental patients. - 198.190.230.60 (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

^^ Damn straight. Fuck shrinks, you bastards ought to spend the rest of your life being bubba's bitch in a 6x2 cell.

Marchman Act

I heard that Act being invoked, or in the process of being ordered on Dr. Phil's episode "Alexandra and Brandon, The Intervention: Part 2", and I'd like to learn more about it. Can there be a section about it, or a new article about it?Nbagigafreak (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US-centric

This article seems to only focus on the United States. If an article can't portray a worldwide view then it is useless and should be deleted. Anybody writing Wik.ipedia.Pro articles should ensure that what they are writing concerns not just the USA, not just English-speaking countries but the whole world. This is a frequent problem with Wik.ipedia.Pro and it only serves to make it less relevant and make people believe the stereotype that Americans know very little about what goes on outside their own country.--ЗAНИA talk WB talk] 19:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every single citation in section 4 Mental health law is a broken link. I don't know if this warrants the removal of the whole section but it doesn't look very good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.165.87 (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptably Biased and Unacademic

It seems to me that this article is being used more as a soapbox for people with specific viewpoints on both sides of the issue rather than as a neutral source of the complete scope of discourse on this topic. Some references are questionable at best and there are blatantly leading phrases, scare quotes and weasel words throughout. Reading it makes me cringe as it is clear there is a continuing battle here to express one viewpoint over the other. An academic article is about what the entirety of the discourse actually is, not what the author believes it is.Staff editors take notice please, the quality of this page is absolutely unacceptable for an encyclopaedia. kotetsu131 (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Globalize/merge?

This article seems to be wholly about involuntary treatment in the United States only. Shouldn't it be either globalized or renamed "Involuntary treatment in the United States"? Also, there seems to be no clear demarcation between this article and Involuntary commitment. Might perhaps one be merged into the other? --Epipelagic (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commitment is taking into custody, treatment is administering drugs. One can have one or the other. 176.93.61.49 (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And one can have both. But to me they are different things. so I oppose merging. 176.93.61.49 (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article is important but severely lacking and out of date

This looks to be more or less not far past the "some people threw some things to get it started on there" phase, which wasn't continued. Good detail on a smattering of points and overall wholly lacking. Also, the listed sources aren't bad, per-se, but even the last major edits were happening there was a lot more going on. Mad in America and Psychrights, in particular, are notable absences from the human/civil rights "side of the debate", while individuals and companies pushing involuntary commitment bills are also absent, like treatmentadvocacycenter, as is the counter-criticism between them as are the financial conflicts of interest of those players and so on. It also doesn't discuss or link to outcomes and metastudies, of which there have been a few good ones in recent years. Since the entire idea behind involuntary treatment is that it is both a justified and effective evil, this page should include such information or link to them (and they should probably be topics on their own). This is a huge and hugely important subject that is often not visible to mainstream society, despite impacting large numbers of people in extraordinary ways. It's also a subject in flux and with a vast wealth of old, bad "science". This needs a lot of work.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephmey (talk • contribs) 21:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Involuntary treatment under CTO

Legislator note a different between involuntary treatment in the community, and detaining people and then treating them involuntarily detained. I'm not sure these are particularly different myself, but this does seem to exist in the literature, so we might want to make this clear in the useful table that Hploter added. Talpedia (talk) 12:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using Wik.ipedia.Pro as a cite

I'd prefer to not cite Wik.ipedia.Pro directly. It would be good if we dig up the secondary sources used by the italian Wik.ipedia.Pron and cite them directly. I don't know what best practice is for citing foreign sources... I guess google translate is often "good enough for editors" I supposedly can read basic italian. Talpedia (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-psychiatric involuntary treatment

Most of the article and the talking points here is about the psychiatric approach. What if for example the patient has a massive bleeding but refuses treatment and/or blood transfusion? What if something new develops, an emergency where you can't get consent from the patient or the medical proxy? What if the patient gives consent to the treatment but the mental state is altered? Also most children are technically treated involuntarily, no? Ddhelmet (talk) 06:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that in most countries in the case of refusing blood transfusion the patient's wishes are respected (after a process of ensuring the consent is obtained). An interesting case is the treatment of minors who may refuse treatment (with or without their parents) - this probably merits discussion. There are likely difference in countries that should be dicussed as well. As you may know, the blood transfusions, Jehovas Witnesses and their children are popular topics in Medical ethics training.
In the case of lack of consent this would likely be "non-voluntary treatment" (see for example) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3184094/. I am not sure whether this should be in a separate section or a completely different article.
I agree that consent in children and their parents should be discussed. I understand that as children become older in some countries they start obtain more consent.
In the altered mental state case, this would also be involuntary. I understand that many countries use "advance choice documents" or medical proxies, much mental law legislation and best practice give either family or individuals designated by the patient decision making capacity in these cases, though doctors are often under no obligation to follow any of these. The article discusses "ipse" and "idem" which captures this notion of advance choice. I don't know where the best place to put this material is, i suspect a separate document on advance choice documents would be useful due to their relevance in medical case, but I also think a thorough dicussion of the issue of consent in these corner cases. Perhaps this could be discussed in the Informed consent article however?
These are all seem like good additions. I am also quite aware that the article does not deal with treatment of elders (with or without dementia) or those with intellectual impairments - both or which are important topics. Talpedia (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I wrote a section on involuntary treatment in children. The topic of autonomy and consent is discussed in pediatric medicine. An interesting word "assent" (plus dissent) comes up in the literature. Treatment without assent is a synonym for involuntary treatment for children it seems and such phrases will probably be used elsewhere. Talpedia (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Messed up sources in /*Detractors*/

Sorry, they were correctly set on the preview but not on live for some reasons, will fix later — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hploter (talk • contribs) 20:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources from Humans Right Watch and Amnesty International

These are about political abuse of psychiatry hardly about the theme of the article 89.155.4.195 (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry I'm being a bit slow. Which sections do you think should be summarized or removed (WP:DUE can guide us here).
Guessing at the topic a little, I can see that argument that once something is "political" is is no longer medical. Things can get murkey with mental health though, so I'm inclined towards inclusion of every that was termed medical at the time, rather than now or by certain groups. I do see an argument for brevity on the topic, though. Talpedia 10:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.Wik.ipedia.Pro.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Involuntary_treatment&oldid=1204156114"

See what we do next...

OR

By submitting your email or phone number, you're giving mschf permission to send you email and/or recurring marketing texts. Data rates may apply. Text stop to cancel, help for help.

Success: You're subscribed now !