Are we missing a human right?

Here's something I've been thinking about a bit more seriously than the usual fray on this forum.

I propose there be a law in (your country here) guaranteeing our right to freedom of thought. It is still much too easy for someone to decide that another person is crazy, mentally ill, disordered or however you prefer to term it. It's perfectly fine to have this opinion of someone else, but it poses a danger to that other person. People can be involuntarily committed if they pose a potential danger to themselves or others, without having committed a single crime.

Psychiatrists are pressing for mass, indiscriminate screenings of schoolchildren across the United States. Drug companies are creating and heavily marketing psychotropic drugs at an increasing rate, despite their limited effectiveness and dangerous side effects. All of this marketing pressure, combined with the threat of involuntary treatments, creates a climate of fear in the world.

I think it's time to stand up against that. It is time we stated the principle once and for all in a basic law protecting our rights:

"No person shall be subjected to any form of mental or spiritual treatment against their will."

I think this should be absolute. It should probably contain the definition that for purposes of this right, the normal incarceration of convicted criminals and the normal education of schoolchildren would not constitute mental or spiritual treatment.

What say you? Can you think of any exception to this human right?

As a mental health professionial I tend to agree with you but am wondering what brought about your post?

Scientologists are well-known for their disdain of modern psychiatry.

I would not mention this but for the fact that Ananda has publicly breached this topic before, so no disclosure is made:
/120/3a/50464/1.html

This is a long-term concern of mine, having had many friends whose lives were interrupted in their teens by a stay in a mental institution, or stuck in limbo because of the drugs they were on. And yesterday I saw an article from Arizona where a PR fight is currently underway over mental health screening of schoolchildren.

P.S. Hiro, I am a Scientologist, although I've not been in the church for several years. I don't really care what you might think of the church, because that's not my subject here. Present a case for why any form of mental treatment should be practiced involuntarily on you. Don't just engage in character assassination.

Does this include the protection from being diagnosed "unclear of thetans"?

Most definitely.

Interesting. I'll see how this thread plays out.

I will say America is overdiagnosed, but having seen unmedicated schitzophrenics, manic depressives, and having a step-father who works in mental health, I've also seen that there's definitely some people who are definitely sick.

Being a danger to oneself is not a good thing but it is every person's right to live their own life as they see fit whether mentally ill or not.

Being a danger to others is where the problem lies. There is no evidence to support the view that mentally ill people present more danger to others than the general population. In fact it is probably the opposite.

You have raised about a million questions such as mental health treatment for children and I suspect there is more to your story.

Personally? I could probably tell you a few things that might convince some people I should be locked up. But no, the only trouble I've run into is that a school counselor once asked me a question that I misinterpreted, and that landed me in old-fashioned psychotherapy sessions for a few months. No real help or harm either way from that. I did learn to be careful what I say though.

What about those who truly are mentally ill? I had a friend who was bipolar, and in the midst of a manic episode, really did need to be watched for his own good. He would likely have been physically harmed had he not. I understand the basis of your proposal, but I think it's too black/white.

That's exactly the sort of thing I'm trying to work out here. What would constitute mental treatment, vs. supervision, vs. unlawful imprisonment. Where do we draw the line on control of another's behavior?

My boss is currently wrangling with this issue. His mother in law has Alzheimer's. She's been shacking up with her boyfriend and refusing any kind of hospital care. Her boyfriend has been driving her around armed with a .357. My boss has been contemplating some kind of plan to kidnap her and haul her across state lines back to his house. It's been quite a soap opera. I saw my own grandpa slowly deteriorate into Alzheimer's. He was hospitalized after he started getting afraid of and hitting my grandma.

It's really hard to watch these things happen, but philosophically, I still tend to think that someone ought to be let be, even if they are deep into dementia, even if they die from it. It's only when they do actually put others at risk that they should be removed from society, and even hospitalized, if they refuse treatment, that's their business.

I agree pretty strongly with the above. Society is at its most restrictive and intrusive when it acts in the name of prevention. We have to stop punishing thoughts that haven't been acted upon. That's why I find domestic spying, looking at library records, scanning email, and all the other violations of privacy commited in the name of reducing risk very troublesome. Life is risky and freedom and individuality are too important to sacrifice in the name of "what if."

I think that meds are given out way too easily anymore. Ridilin(spell check) is given to most parents because they are too lazy to deal with their child. Granted there are situations that may call for it, but not as often as the drug companies would like you to believe.

Phillip Dick and Commissioner Anderton strongly recommend that you support the Precrime System to eliminate all crimes before they can be committed. It is also recommended that you forget any epistemological or metaphysical concerns you may have about the program.

Like many things, I don't think it's so much as case of us being more screwed-up, but being able to name that which screws us up.

200 years ago, a kid with ADHD didn't get Ritalin - at best, they got thwacked with a paddle for being goof-offs.

(It's related to how I often hear how the world is worse than is once was - whereas I hold it's not that we have more bad news nowadays, it's that we can more efficently let the entire damned planet know about it. Once upon a time, you'd never have heard of things happening halfway around the globe. See Theodore Sturgeon's "...And Now The News" for an excellent fictional treatment of the problem.)

Unless the person has become a danger to themselves or to others, I cannot embrace any form of forced chemical treatment.

Mass, indiscriminate screenings are a HUGE invasion of privacy and I would absolutely protest against it. What's next - genetic screening?

I should note, I am not a Scientologist, but my family is Native American and at one point, members were taken and subjected to forced re-education. I consider this something very similar. Society taking the round peg and MAKING IT FIT IN THE SQUARE HOLE.

Also I agree with Spinner, WAY too many kids today are on Ritalin! Maybe some do need it but not as many as are being FORCED on it. This should be a decision left up to the parents and the parents doctor. Our government should not be able to dictate this to us and when they can, do you think they will stop with our children?

.

I still hope Katie Holmes has post partum depression and needs meds for it.

Yes, meds are handed out way too easily.Especially to school kids. A good majority of them don't need them, and I feel bad for the kids that are naturally antsy and the parents are TOLD the kids needs to be on the meds or find another school. I bet I would have been put on meds because I was a day dreamer and hated sitting still in class and liked the social aspect of school more than the learning part. It wasn't anything out of the ordinary at all. But nowadays teachers freak when children aren't docile learning machines they can control.

I took anti-depressants after my son was born and they made me mean. So I switched to an anti-anxiety called BuSpar and ended up feeling better. Then stopped taking it after 9 months.

My husband deals with nutcases every day and they do present a danger to him and others. He can very rarely take them into custody and bring them to the mental health hospital because they do not DO anything that is a real threat. When family members want to commit them, they have all sorts of hurdles to go through. It's really hard to actually get someone commited if they haven't signed any legal paperwork giving you the authority. They have to actually SAY they want to hurt someone or do an action that would cause harm to themselves or another person before anything can happen. (hubby is a deputy sheriff) We've had longgg discussions on this subject and that he feels bad for the family members that are trying to help but can't due to legal protections of these people.

Another point to consider...

I don't know about other countries, but here in the US a few decades back, we as a society decided that mental hospitals were rather inhumane. As a result, many were closed and the patients told to leave. Many of them had no where else to go. Several ended up living on the streets. This happened in my husband's home town, which used to have such a hospital. Many of the patients simply stuck around after the hospital closed; some froze to death come winter. I have very mixed feelings on the topic. I do see the potential for abuse, but throwing someone from a safe environment onto the street doesn't seem to humane to me, either.

Care in the community doesn't work, because the community doesnt care.

It's strange - for people who really, really need the medication and treatment, there are months of backlogs to get meds and help if you are poor and cannot afford it. You are right, hospitals have closed and so many avenues have closed to people who have actually become a danger to themselves and others.

OTOH - our government is proposing screening people for mental illness before they have even shown symptoms of mental illness. What will happen to those who have been "screened" out as having some sort of mental illness?

How will this affect their ability to get into Harvard? Yale? UCLA? How will it affect their job prospects? Will it affect their ability to get a security clearence (more and more important in getting a job today)?

How reliable are the screening techniques? The diagnosis?

Just points to ponder..

.

This thread makes me sad.

Is the battle for 'Free Speech' such a lost cause that we are now
arguing for the right to have 'Free Thought' protected? (Provided
we don't do anything stupid and dangerously suicidal like voice an
unpopular dissenting opinion?)

Anyway, taking the point seriously, "Freedom of thought" would
have some interesting consequences. Like 'Hate crimes' and
'first degree murder' would both have to be abolished because
the distinction is in the motives and thinking of the perpetrator.

Personally, I'm all for free thought and free speech.

I'm also 'for' the ability to carry a fly swatter that I can use to
swat anyone that annoys me by walking too slowly, talking too
loudly on their cell phones, cutting in line or looking at me funny.

--
"I pass for normal." (most of the time)

Here's the crux of the matter, the question of what people need. I don't buy the idea that anyone actually needs to be medicated for mental troubles, at least of the sort that don't have any verifiable physical cause (and that's most of them). Medications have become a band-aid that people slap over their troubles, permanently altering their brains, and the brains of their children, rather than really getting a good look and dealing with the situation.

People need the right to make up their own minds about what happens to their minds. Society needs to protect itself from dangerous criminals, and needs to see to it that people who are a danger to themselves don't become a danger to others around them.

These are not necessarily contradictory needs. For violence whether actual or threatened, we do have something called due process of law. I think people with mental disorders deserve the right to a fair trial just like anyone else.

As for people who are truly insane, and by this I mean completely incapable of rational communication, simply place them in a safe environment and see to it they get proper medical care and nutrition. And the instant they are coherent enough to ask to leave, let them. During that time they are incompetent, no mental treatment whatsoever should be exercised on them, as they would not be capable of informed consent.

Help is another word used in regards to mental disorders in a very politicized manner. When did "help" grow to encompass acts such as locking up and drugging your relative? Call it what it is - solving one of your own problems.

I always support human rights, but I'm not quite sure about this one. I certainly don't feel well-informed enough about any scientific field, apart from my own, to make any kind of judgement on its legitimacy. As a scientist, I tend to be suspicious when people or organizations try to apply their morality to science, and then to the rest of us.

Being a moderate, I generally think it's hard to define things in terms of "always" or "never". That's why many religions make me extremely nervous.

However, I do believe in the right to privacy as a fundamental freedom. As long as someone's behavior isn't hurting others, I see no reason for anyone to force any kind of treatment - whether chemical, therapeutic, or spiritual - on anyone else.

Disasociative psychosis, hallucinatory pschysophrenia, dementia, destructive manic depression, suicidal neurosis, sociopathy ... in other words any violent destructive disorder that poses a threat to the patient or others that prevent the patient from making rational, reality-based decisions.

And there are a LOT of those.

ps, sorry for the spelling mistakes, some of those are hard to remember.