Forced Medication is rape of the soul

Infinite_Jester,

I'm allowed to support the OP if I wish to do so. So is anyone else.

Their responses do not need to be satisfactory to your logic in order to be valid responses. It sounds like your posts in this forum are written from the point of view that anti-psych is not valid, and you aim to prove that any chance given. If someone did that in the bipolar or schizophrenia forum, it wouldn't be tolerated well. Please have some consideration.

ladyswan wrote:I'm allowed to support the OP if I wish to do so. So is anyone else.

This is a true statement. However, it doesn't make "soul rape" any more coherent.

ladyswan wrote:Their responses do not need to be satisfactory to your logic in order to be valid responses. It sounds like your posts in this forum are written from the point of view that anti-psych is not valid, and you aim to prove that any chance given.

To clarify, there is no such things as personal logic. It is not as if each person has a system of logic that it itself equally valid. Logic is an axiomatic system of proofs similar to mathematics that proves which forms of argument are deductively valid. Here is an example of a logical proof (Modus Ponens)

1. If P, then Q
2. P
3. Therefore, Q

The idea of logic is that you can substitute the formalized argument with premises of actual arguments. Here's an example:

1. If Lady Swan supports the OP's argument, then she believes forced drugging is "soul rape"
2. Lady Swan does support the OP's argument
3. Therefore, Lady Swan believes forced drugging is "soul rape"

See how that works? Neato!

(Side note: Logic only shows that the form of an argument is deductively valid not whether or not the premises are true. Also, logic can never prove that an argument is true or good. That requires an evaluative judgement which is relies on reason)

Also, I have no idea what you mean by saying

ladyswan wrote:the point of view that anti-psych is not valid, and you aim to prove that any chance given.

Deductive validity doesn't apply here so what could you mean? Anti psychiatry makes both philosophical and scientific claims and they are to be evaluated by the rules of each area of investigation. Making up your own area of study/investigation and upholding it's validity (again we don't know what you mean) does not make sense.

To quote myself (this is shameless)

"Criticisms of psychiatry's system of classification, the normative practices for the ascription of mental health diagnoses, ethical arguments against forced treatment, civil commitment and community treatment orders, protests to the use of psychiatric medications on children and the elderly (typically for dementia), conceptual criticisms of the use of the term "mental illness" or "mental disease", the proliferation of psychiatric medications in Western society, and broader complaints about the field's impersonal and dehumanizing treatment and understanding of people are all themselves part of psychiatry and psychology's rich subject matter which includes criticism."

Claims can be reasonable, supportable by evidence and have true premises.
Scientific theories either stand up to falsification through testing or they are eliminated.

If anti-psych disregards this then I'm of the opinion that committing yourself to nonsense.

To Flowing Tears,

This is what I wrote about forced drugging:

Infinite_Jester wrote:(2) "Valid consent" may not be able to be given by someone severely psychotic who does not understand the benefits of treatment because of a lack of comprehension of reality. (This is the only case in which forced drugging can be argued).

(I didn't edit that in either you can check)

So we are in agreement that many forced and coerced druggings are abusive.

The reason why all this matters is that mental health consumers really need people to stand up for them by arguing that the mental health care system is impersonal, dehumanizing, stigmatizing and that it consistently abuses it's power. Furthermore, there are people who really need help and support which they government and society seem to ignore. People are suffering and your awful arguments aren't helping.

Again, if your going to do mental health consumer advocacy you got to do it right! And the banal rhetoric that forced drugging is "soul rape" doesn't do anything for anyone.

There are arguments against forced treatment including:

(1) It damages the relationship between the client and the system pushing them further away from the people that they depend on
(2) That the right to refuse medical treatment is a near perfect human right (In the sense that it doesn't conflict with anything)
(3) That it is only an acute solution to medication non compliance.
(4) It's wastes an incredible amount of resources chasing after one person when there are dozens of other who want treatment (This is sounds pretty cold but when resources are scarce you gotta think like a utilitarian)

and so on. You wanna make a difference you gotta do the work. There's no shortcuts.

BTW- I'm not anti-psych. I'm psych. I give a $#%^ about people and think that science, reason, and social action is the way that we're going to make difference.

Infinite_Jester wrote:Again, if your going to do mental health consumer advocacy you got to do it right! And the banal rhetoric that forced drugging is "soul rape" doesn't do anything for anyone.

I dont think you have ever been soul raped, It starts with a little pinch where ever they decide to inject you and you feel sickly painful little lump where the poison sits inside your body. There is nothing you can do, its inside you, as deep inside as anything can possibly get and it goes to work disrupting your brain and body with its nausiating warmth as it shorts out your mind and you just want to crawl out of your skin so you muscles have room to twitch and malfunction.

mental health consumer advocacy ? Im talking about Human rights on this thread.

I would be quicker to agree or disagree with you if you cited places other than wikipedia or even made your own points, since this is such a strong statement..

lovely_delusions wrote:I would be quicker to agree or disagree with you if you cited places other than wikipedia or even made your own points, since this is such a strong statement..

Where did I quote Wikipedia? ( I know Modus Ponnens and Modus Tolens off by heart! )

Copy_Cat wrote:

Infinite_Jester wrote:Again, if your going to do mental health consumer advocacy you got to do it right! And the banal rhetoric that forced drugging is "soul rape" doesn't do anything for anyone.

I dont think you have ever been soul raped, It starts with a little pinch where ever they decide to inject you and you feel sickly painful little lump where the poison sits inside your body. There is nothing you can do, its inside you, as deep inside as anything can possibly get and it goes to work disrupting your brain and body with its nausiating warmth as it shorts out your mind and you just want to crawl out of your skin so you muscles have room to twitch and malfunction.

So "soul rape" occurs when someone forcibly drugs your body with compounds that affect your mental states in a negative way? Where does the soul come into this? And how is any of this sexual?

Wouldn't it be much more clearer and coherent to say that forced drugging is morally impermissible because it denies someone the right to refuse medical treatment?

Also, mental health consumer advocacy is compatible with human rights.

Cited, not quoted. The links are in your first post are from wikipedia.

So "soul rape" occurs when someone forcibly drugs your body with compounds that affect your mental states in a negative way? Where does the soul come into this? And how is any of this sexual?

Wouldn't it be much more clearer and coherent to say that forced drugging is morally impermissible because it denies someone the right to refuse medical treatment?

Also, mental health consumer advocacy is compatible with human rights.

If you realy think about it rape is forced penatration and injection, in sexaul rape the injected stuff may be just as unwanted but does not go as deep "inside" a person.

I think the word raped describes the feelings generated by the expirience of forced injection.

Copy_Cat wrote:If you realy think about it rape is forced penatration and injection, in sexaul rape the injected stuff may be just as unwanted but does not go as deep "inside" a person.

No one uses the word "rape" that way nor is it defined authoritatively in any non-sexual terms.

However, I'm sure many people who have been forcibly drugged feel just as awful as someone who has been raped.

Definition of RAPE
1
: an act or instance of robbing or despoiling or carrying away a person by force
2
: unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent — compare sexual assault, statutory rape
3
: an outrageous violation

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rape%5B3%5D

It could fit the first and third definitions.

Definition of SOUL
1
: the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life

So anything that forces you into a behavior can be called a rape of the soul, as long as it is outrageous (which makes it a strong statement).

What a stretch though!

To say that forced medication is an outrageous violation of someone's soul.

Do you guys have any sense of how people actually use language? Including the use of the word rape?

Also, your doing semantics when you should be doing ethics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

Give it a rest already. Jeez