Forced Psychiatric Treatment or Care

I'd argue my initial presents there was fualty and done by an unliscensed employee as stated on the business card. I had other options to stay in the immediate facinity, additionaly I was seeking for a social worker to talk to my manager concerning required repairs.

No, it's not ok to take away my rights. Nor your right to do so.

There is no reason in my cirumstance, let alone the freedoms of other fellow americans in there situations to treat someone by force and threat for non-volitile behaviours though suidical pathologies when such harms are immediatly done this differs.

So you got a bum deal. And i'm sorry for that. You live in the best country in the world right....lots of freedoms and ect, not nigera or syria so i'm sure you'll find your justice.

On a general scale forced psychiatric treatment is usually in the patiants best interest.

You legal rights shouldnt be taken away. I'll assume the "nor your right to do so" wasnt directed at me personally.

If a patient seems to believe forced psychiatric care in other then highly violatile circumstances is in the best interest of him or herself and release of those personal rights should then be signed by him or her. Though one must assure that the invididual him or herself understands that which they are signing away and should have the right to release that right of forced care of the facility.

JamieJ23 wrote:This being N-America dosent mean anything to the topic. When your sent to one of those hospitals its because there removing you from society....so at that point its not in your or societys best interest for you to have freedom, just like in prison. Except its not supposed to be a punishment.

The significant difference being that in the case of going to prison, you've already done something. If you are perceived as a threat due to a mental disorder, you don't have to do anything. You have to be perceived as having the potential.

Personally, I feel that all people have to potential to be a danger to themselves, their surroundings, and society as a whole. No mental disorder is necessary.

Now, technically, you are not supposed to be forced into treatment unless you are considered a clear and immediate risk, but that is left to interpretation, and seems a little to easy to misinterpret.

At that point, the problem becomes much more complicated.

IMO those involved should not be considered infallible, or a god, at least in common usage of the term. They're people, and can be corrupt or mistaken. The patient should be aware of his or her rights, and demand they be respected. If he or she is concerned that these demands will be ignored, he or she should get an advocate to watch for any violations of their civil rights.

I wrote this from the perspective of fundamental freedoms. I am thoughtful of two parts:

1. Forced medicating / drugging a patient for being volatile still violates fundamental freedoms. Should the patient with respects to fundamental human rights still have the right to decline emergency medication and other techniques used such as a containment suit used to keep him or herself safe?

2. Releasing the non-criminal long-term institutionalized disabled into re-integration homes with live in social workers + nurses that can guide them into re-instergration in society. If one has not committed a criminal offence yet still is a risk to him or herself, it is not entirely ethical by some to release them. Still yet they should be free in a free country despite having X disability leaving them to be a risk to themselves or others in possibility.

One should have had to commit a crime in order to be contained in a locked facility. Freedoms are freedoms and someone should then choose to stay at a facility or not.

Instead of highly expensive hospital stays that are a violation of freedom, he or she should be given a voucher if one chooses to stay at a hotel for a few days if homelessness is the issue.

There are incidences where a common trend of behaviors are present dictating that an individual in the past has been proven to be unsafe to him or herself even with a proper place to stay.

This issue is somewhat of a catch 22, freedoms vs. safety. Still yet there are times, especially with my own that I believe I was held and not released to family for complaining originally about services, instead of an actual health problem.

It is likely that 24hr hearings should be available instead of after 3 days of unconstitutional human rights violations. I was released myself by a superior court judge after the government wanted to keep me for no appearent reason. I never told him about the violations because of the behaviors of other government employees for fear of being held by him for telling him.

Perhaps if staff, especially doctors increased there respect and dignity towards disabled individuals, including nice tones of voices instead of even slightly mean and impatient ones, people would be more apt to stay in such an environment.

Until then, treating a disabled person even slightly adversely to his or her well being in an already unconstitutional circumstance should be grounds for being fired. Seriously...

-------------------------
I Believe
By Nathan Young

The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve
nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin


If there was a time to stand up for the free, then that time is now. In America, founded by those seeking freedoms, we should not in the year 2006 still have to be seeking the same ideal within the same country known by the world for its democracy and freedoms.

In this year of 2006 in the month of August we should not have to advocate for the freedoms of those whom should already be free. In this year of 2006 I am regretfully informing my fellow Americans of those whom are not free in this free country. Non-Criminal Americans Citizens locked up against there will stripped of there rights, the same rights I was stripped wrongly of, the fundamental rights we were falsely promised.

I believe that all Americans, no matter the way in which they are, in exception for extraordinary circumstances such as the present attempt at suicide or physical harm to another should have the right to choose what goes in there body pharmaceutically and whether or not they should remain committed in a mental institution. A fundamental right to have the ability to choose what pharmaceutically goes in there bodies as well as the right to choose to walk out of a locked down mental health facility with there free willed choice intact.

At no time in American history should have innocent American citizens been locked up against there will for seeking help with tax-payer funded governmental and or private sector mental health organizations. At no time should they have been locked up against there will without being a criminal. I believe removing the rights of fellow Americans against there will’s by imprisoning them and forcing them to take medications against there will sometimes by physical force and threats is fundamentally against the United States constitution and a violation of universal human rights.

I also believe that a time has come to stand up against such injustices to change the laws that allow this to occur and attitudes against the disabled whose stereotypes enable such laws to exist seemingly legitimately. I stand empowered today once experiencing the harsh nature of governmental illegal conducts removing my rights and freedoms, while intrusting that improvements will be made to improve the integrity of our countries government.

I believe in a change…

It’s time for a change and I believe the Turning in Big Brother campaign is the beginning of that possibility of change. We together must empower the once free by giving them back there fundamental freedoms as we all were promised growing up in this here free country of the United States of America.

It’s time for a change that grants the fundamental freedoms back to disabled Americans. Changes that will empower the disabled and not disenfranchise or alienate them due to disabilities, differences and unique ways of being they should be free to be.

I believe that freedom is precious, freedom should not be removed so confidently by a few against the will of fellow American Citizens. I believe that it’s time to change the laws that dispermit Americans whom are non-criminals from the freedom of choosing what goes in there bodies pharmaceutically and there freedom to be free within society in how it is they are do to disabilities.

We should not be foolish to think that freedoms do not come at a price. Some individuals are truly ill in ways in which by releasing them might result in death or grave injury. Yet we cannot assume that this would occur for all individuals or them themselves and we cannot also assume the right to disallow the freedoms of Americans just because some might do harms to themselves or others.

The right to choose, the right to be and the right to exist as someone is should not be impeded by the false right assumed by the government to remove American freedoms because of maybes. In order to contain someone against there will they must conduct a criminal offence, this is the balance that should have been preserved between that of the innocent and that of the guilty.

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security,
deserve neither liberty or security -Benjamin Franklin

Nathan Young
I believe

Nathan, you are your own worst enemy. I read your story on your site, you style will alienate anyone who reads it. The problem is that you don't present facts and allow people to come to their own conclusion.

My suggestion is for you to completely revise your approach.

Actually, I've received e-mails and posts from U.S citizens and others around the world agreeing. There is no need of revising as the adverse reaction is targeting those whom would otherwise disagree by attacking there patriotism and otherwise.

The style is highly strategic, direct, honest and does contain entirely fact when able. Where there is no fact, there is no statistics as such statistics for let's say socio-economic discrimination are not available and cannot be available. It is rather my experience and that of the projection of others in part.

The only parts that need to be changed are likely the parts you do not like or others might not like. It was written carefully to incite reaction from opposition.

I'd love to argue opposition, yet I have had no opportunity to exercise oppositional arguments.

Your style is reminiscent of "Stupid White Men" by Michael Moore. Perhaps you should read it, you might like his presentation.

I don't tend to watch T.V though appreciate a movie now and then. Your attempt at insult is noted, go cause problems elsewhere. Stupid is something I am not, though the notes of me being in special education in high school and your arse remark calling me a stupid white man reflecting my going to sociology 5 racial and ethnic studies is similar enough for deductive plausibility. Stupid is something I am not, your remarks reflect that of the stupidity on your part.

http://www.nathanyoung.net/college.html

Nathan, I think you misunderstood me. "Stupid white men" is a book about the Bush administration. It's very satirical. I didn't mean to imply that you were stupid, just that your presentation is not good.