The Evil of Involuntary Commitment

[mysterio448]

I have a personal horror story to reveal to you. Eleven years ago, I was having regular psychiatry sessions. During one session, I mentioned to my therapist that I sometimes fantasized about suicide. At this point she freaked out and said that she needed to "take action." She said that she was calling the police and was having me taken to a hospital. At the time, I knew very little about the field of psychiatry, so I had no idea what was going on. I didn't want to comply with this but the therapist said I had no choice. Eventually the police came and took me to a facility where I essentially became a prisoner. I was put in a ward designated for suicidals and alcoholics and I was held behind electronically locked doors and forced to take regular psychiatric sessions with doctors I had never met before. I pleaded with the employees to let me out but they just ignored me. I was forced to live with a bunch of complete strangers; I shared a room with an alcoholic who had a liver problem and coughed in his sleep constantly – I got maybe four hours of sleep each night because of this. I had to take group sessions with the other patients and had to watch various video presentations about both depression and alcoholism and drug abuse. I was forced to take regular doses of Paxil each day; I had to stand in front of a nurse and let her watch me swallow the pill. However, since I don't put faith in psychiatric drugs, I merely put the pills under my tongue and pretended to swallow them, and later I spat the pills out and flushed them down the toilet. After five nightmarish days, I was finally allowed to leave that hellhole.

After leaving, I was quite confused as to what had just happened. After talking to the psychiatrist who had called the police on me and after doing some research of my own, I realized that what had happened to me was a procedure common to psychiatry known as "involuntary commitment." Apparently if a therapist sees the patient as a danger to himself, he has the power to forcibly commit the patient to a hospital against the patient's will.

I am writing this post because I think that what was done to me was an egregious evil, an unconstitutional act, and a violation of my civil rights. As of right now I have no plans to commit suicide, but even if I did the government has no right to tell me I can't do it. Whether or not a person has a right to kill himself is not a legal issue but a philosophical one. There is a basic philosophical premise underneath involuntary commitment, which is that citizens have no right to kill themselves; but the government has no business making philosophical judgments on behalf of citizens. The government simply has no right to interfere in such a matter; this is a matter of personal choice, a personal right. The right to live and the right to die are just opposite sides of the same coin. They both constitute two aspects of the whole that is the most basic right of a human being. It is unethical for the government to say that a person has no right to kill himself; it makes no more sense than for the government to say a person has no right to live.

Another problem I have with involuntary commitment is that it gives WAY too much power to psychiatrists. They already have a good deal of power, for example they apparently can invent new diseases and disorders as they see fit, they impose certain drugs on society based on those invented diseases, and they also can decide the fates of defendants in court by determining their psychological fitness. Allowing them to make people do things they don't want to do is just taking things too far.

Psychiatrists are classified as "doctors," but what other kind of doctor has the kind of power that psychiatrists have? Take this example. Say there is an oncologist who has a patient he has just diagnosed with cancer. He recommends chemotherapy. But say the patient says no; she doesn't want the chemotherapy. There is no way that the oncologist can force the patient to take chemotherapy, even if he is absolutely certain that the patient will die very soon if she doesn't get it, and he is certain the chemotherapy will prolong her life for many years. The choice of the cancer patient to refuse chemotherapy and the choice of the psychiatric patient to pursue suicide are effectively not that much different. So a doctor that has a genuine ability to save lives can not force a particular treatment upon his patients against their will, but for some mysterious reason psychiatrists have been given this power. They have been given power by the government to impose their own treatment on their patients against their will. Is this right? Does this make sense? I would say that psychiatrists should have even less power over their patients than other doctors, since their diagnoses are so much more subjective and un-scientific compared with those of other doctors. In my opinion, the only doctor that should be able to impose a treatment on his patients without their consent is a veterinarian.

Honestly, I have very little respect for the field of psychiatry in general. I don't know of any medical field in which the "doctor" gets paid so much for so little work. All they do is just sit there and listen, occasionally give some stupid advice, and then prescribe you whatever pharmaceutical drug they are told by the powers that be to prescribe. The field is very subjective, nonscientific and questionable. During slavery days in the US, some psychiatrists invented a particular mental illness called "drapetomania," which caused some slaves to have the strange urge to run away from captivity. In the mid 1900s, they determined that homosexuality was a mental illness and imposed certain treatments for it including electric shock therapy. What psychiatrists are doing today is no better than these other questionable procedures; locking people away for the mere mention of suicide is just as ridiculous.

Psychiatry wants to solve every psychological problem with science: first it was electroshock therapy, then lobotomies, now its pharmaceutical drugs. But the fact is that psychological problems are caused by complex mental, social, and environmental factors which cannot necessarily be reduced to distinct scientific terms. Society sees depression and suicidal thoughts as diseases, in the same sense that asthma or tuberculosis are diseases, and thus can be treated as such. But I disagree. Suicidal intention is not the problem; it is the solution. Psychiatrists should be targeting the problems that lead one to that particular solution rather than targeting the solution itself. Incarcerating and medicating someone for a solution is stupid and wrong. It accomplishes nothing. Personally, I don't think that involuntary commitment is an effective procedure for turning people away from suicide, and even if it were I still think it's wrong because the decision to commit suicide is a personal and philosophical matter and should not itself be illegal.

Involuntary commitment is unjust and a violation of civil rights. It is truly scary to know that the government can just scoop you up and incarcerate you even when you've done nothing wrong and have committed no crime, just because you said something unpopular. This is why we have laws; laws don't exist to protect the popular opinions but to protect the unpopular ones. This procedure should frighten everyone. It may seem OK to some, but at the very least it is a crack in the door to further violations of people's rights to think and live as they please. What other rights will they take away next? What other actions can we be incarcerated for next? What other opinions will they shut down next?

What are your feelings about involuntary commitment? What should/can we do to put a stop to this evil?

[Impenitent]

enjoy your government run "healthcare"

-Imp

[Arising_uk]

enjoy your government run "healthcare"

-Imp

But this appears to be American 'healthcare' so not govt run?

Who paid for the incarceration and who made money from it?

Over here where it is govt run (although we fast appear to be going down the American route as our current crop of ministers appear hand-in-hand with the large American 'healthcare' companies) I don't think what has been described can happen as to section someone under the mental health act needs at least three different professionals to agree. Not saying you can't be put away but just not on the say-so of one person and especially not just a trickcyclist or a doctor, as a long-time back the rich were sectioning their 'loved' ones to get the loot.

[mysterio448]

enjoy your government run "healthcare"

-Imp

But this appears to be American 'healthcare' so not govt run?

Who paid for the incarceration and who made money from it?

Over here where it is govt run (although we fast appear to be going down the American route as our current crop of ministers appear hand-in-hand with the large American 'healthcare' companies) I don't think what has been described can happen as to section someone under the mental health act needs at least three different professionals to agree. Not saying you can't be put away but just not on the say-so of one person and especially not just a trickcyclist or a doctor, as a long-time back the rich were sectioning their 'loved' ones to get the loot.

My incarceration was paid for by my insurance and copay, and I presume the hospital profited.

[Walker]

What are your feelings about involuntary commitment?

It is a violation of civil rights, in much the same sense that being detained by law enforcement is a violation of civil rights.

If a victim of trauma in the ER says that they want to die, then they are put under lock and key observation, even though they did nothing wrong. The process of involuntary commitment is for the benefit of the traumatized person whose judgement is impaired at the time. By the standard of Life, the impetus to suicide is evidence of impaired judgement.

The process of involuntary commitment is also a defensive action for therapists and physicians. Liability defense against roving packs of hungry lawyers.

If the intent of involuntary commitment by society was solely to protect the afflicted, then the poor souls who were turned out of state-run U.S. facilities in the seventies to live in the streets, and those mentally-ill who followed them to live in the streets, would also be involuntarily committed. It would be for their own good, with “good” defined by the society in which they live. And what a slippery teflon slope that is, when one person defines for another what is best for them. This is why to live under the auspices of society, one is required to accept the licensing parameters that qualify those who are trained to define what is best for you ... in certain situations.

[mysterio448]

What are your feelings about involuntary commitment?

It is a violation of civil rights, in much the same sense that being detained by law enforcement is a violation of civil rights.

If a victim of trauma in the ER says that they want to die, then they are put under lock and key observation, even though they did nothing wrong. The process of involuntary commitment is for the benefit of the traumatized person whose judgement is impaired at the time. By the standard of Life, the impetus to suicide is evidence of impaired judgement.

The process of involuntary commitment is also a defensive action for therapists and physicians. Liability defense against roving packs of hungry lawyers.

I disagree with you here. I am a believer in self-accountability, the idea that I am responsible for my own actions and no one else's, and no one else is responsible for my actions. So I disagree that a person who has been traumatized should be held prisoner for their own "benefit." I believe that if a person wants to kill him/herself during a period of emotional trauma then that is their choice. I believe a person is free to make his own choices; he is free to make his own choices under calm circumstances and he is free to make foolish, hasty choices under traumatic circumstances. I will not stop them. I don't believe that one adult should ever be held accountable for the actions of another adult. This whole involuntary commitment procedure is based upon, I believe, flawed reasoning. And if I do not condone the imprisonment of a traumatized person who wants to commit suicide, I certainly do not condone the imprisonment of a person who under calm conditions discusses suicidal thoughts.

As far as the legal matters, if what you say is true then the laws need to be changed. One person should never be held accountable for the actions of another.

If the intent of involuntary commitment by society was solely to protect the afflicted, then the poor souls who were turned out of state-run U.S. facilities in the seventies to live in the streets, and those mentally-ill who followed them to live in the streets, would also be involuntarily committed. It would be for their own good, with “good” defined by the society in which they live. And what a slippery teflon slope that is, when one person defines for another what is best for them. This is why to live under the auspices of society, one is required to accept the licensing parameters that qualify those who are trained to define what is best for you ... in certain situations.

I am not sure what you are saying here. It seems that you have basically contradicted everything you've said before. You take the words right out of my mouth when you say that one person should not define for another what is best for them, but yet you still sympathize with the psychiatrists on this issue. I am confused by this.

[HexHammer]

Most shrinks can only perform "parrot speeches" and doesn't understand the concept of prevalence, and thinks all suicidal people has the intend of actually committing suicide, instead of just thinking about it.

In Denmark we can't commit anyone by force unless they have proven to be either a danger to themselves or others, but in USA just the mere thought can force a person, which is apalling, and the cure is often worse than the illness.

[Walker]

What are your feelings about involuntary commitment?

It is a violation of civil rights, in much the same sense that being detained by law enforcement is a violation of civil rights.

If a victim of trauma in the ER says that they want to die, then they are put under lock and key observation, even though they did nothing wrong. The process of involuntary commitment is for the benefit of the traumatized person whose judgement is impaired at the time. By the standard of Life, the impetus to suicide is evidence of impaired judgement.

The process of involuntary commitment is also a defensive action for therapists and physicians. Liability defense against roving packs of hungry lawyers.

I disagree with you here. I am a believer in self-accountability, the idea that I am responsible for my own actions and no one else's, and no one else is responsible for my actions. So I disagree that a person who has been traumatized should be held prisoner for their own "benefit." I believe that if a person wants to kill him/herself during a period of emotional trauma then that is their choice. I believe a person is free to make his own choices; he is free to make his own choices under calm circumstances and he is free to make foolish, hasty choices under traumatic circumstances. I will not stop them. I don't believe that one adult should ever be held accountable for the actions of another adult. This whole involuntary commitment procedure is based upon, I believe, flawed reasoning. And if I do not condone the imprisonment of a traumatized person who wants to commit suicide, I certainly do not condone the imprisonment of a person who under calm conditions discusses suicidal thoughts.

As far as the legal matters, if what you say is true then the laws need to be changed. One person should never be held accountable for the actions of another.

If the intent of involuntary commitment by society was solely to protect the afflicted, then the poor souls who were turned out of state-run U.S. facilities in the seventies to live in the streets, and those mentally-ill who followed them to live in the streets, would also be involuntarily committed. It would be for their own good, with “good” defined by the society in which they live. And what a slippery teflon slope that is, when one person defines for another what is best for them. This is why to live under the auspices of society, one is required to accept the licensing parameters that qualify those who are trained to define what is best for you ... in certain situations.

I am not sure what you are saying here. It seems that you have basically contradicted everything you've said before. You take the words right out of my mouth when you say that one person should not define for another what is best for them, but yet you still sympathize with the psychiatrists on this issue. I am confused by this.

Hello.

To answer your question of what I’m saying …

The first part you quoted is a statement of the way things are, not the way I think things should be. When you disagree you aren’t disagreeing with me, but with the way things are in this neck of the woods.

The second quote is my inference. It's an assertion that the welfare of people, which is the reason people are locked up who threaten suicide, is the ostensible reason.

The underlying reason and the one that sets procedure is legal liability. The proof that this underlying reason is the motivating force is the fact that when no legal liability is involved, the professionals who commit people involuntarily for their own good, will ignore the homeless on the street, many of whom are mentally deficient because of mental illness. When legal liability is not in play, the welfare of people clearly in need is not a concern of the professionals.

Based on your comments, you would appreciate the work of Thomas Szasz. He was a psychiatrist who didn't believe in mental illness.

I also lean towards the libertarian view.

[mysterio448]

Hello.

To answer your question of what I’m saying …

The first part you quoted is a statement of the way things are, not the way I think things should be. When you disagree you aren’t disagreeing with me, but with the way things are in this neck of the woods.

The second quote is my inference. It's an assertion that the welfare of people, which is the reason people are locked up who threaten suicide, is the ostensible reason.

The underlying reason and the one that sets procedure is legal liability. The proof that this underlying reason is the motivating force is the fact that when no legal liability is involved, the professionals who commit people involuntarily for their own good, will ignore the homeless on the street, many of whom are mentally deficient because of mental illness. When legal liability is not in play, the welfare of people clearly in need is not a concern of the professionals.

Based on your comments, you would appreciate the work of Thomas Szasz. He was a psychiatrist who didn't believe in mental illness.

I also lean towards the libertarian view.

I understand what you mean now. You make a good point; people who are perfectly sane and yet dare to mention the word suicide are locked away in an institution when liability is a factor, but truly insane people are still left free on the streets. Although I still would argue that the laws in this situation are stupid. It's like I said in the OP, why should a psychiatrist be held responsible for the fate of a suicidal patient when an oncologist is not held responsible for the fate of a cancer victim who opts out of chemotherapy? The laws seem strangely lopsided. Psychiatrists are given far too much power and influence.