14 April 2007

Saturday 14th April 2007. Involuntary detention is a crime


Involuntary detention of psychiatric patients is a crime.
Involuntary medication of psychiatric patients is a crime.

There is an illogicality that stares out from the scandal that is psychiatry in its present form.
If psychiatric illnesses are bio-medical illnesses like cancer or diabetes, then surely people with such supposed conditions should have the right to refuse medications and treatment just as people with cancer and diabetes have the right to refuse treatment.

There is no difference between saying that "this "mentally ill" patient is a danger to himself or others" and "this violent offender who has just finished a six month sentence for violent behaviour is a danger to himself or others".
Being violent is also a risk to the perpetrator. Hence being violent is dangerous to oneself.
If the logic of mental health were applied to "non mentally ill" offenders then persistently violent people should be locked up indefinitely.

If someone is persistently violent though not "mentally ill" are they not also a danger to themselves or others?
Why are they not detained without crime as well?

The current system is an absurdity and a crime.

-----

The contention that people who are "a danger to themselves or others" should be incarcerated without having committed an offence is an absurdity and leads to the crime of detention of the innocent.

Everyone is potentially a danger to themselves or others. Therefore everyone without exception should be locked up.

Involuntary detention of so-called "mentally ill" persons (this means nothing) is arbitrary detention, a breach of habeas corpus, an infringement of human rights and a crime.
-------

It is only convention that leads people to baulk at this reality.

What if someone thinks they are Caesar and wants to conquer Gaul or something else similar?
This is a very common retort.

This is first of all merely a belief on the part of the person claiming to be Caesar and wanting to conquer Gaul. There is no evidence of an illness of any kind.
Secondly, a belief, whatever it may be, cannot in any circumstance in itself warrant arrest.

On principle alone no one should be incarcerated without crime.

Convention still has force and people say what if they are a danger to themselves or others?

This is ludicrous.
Whether someone is a danger to themselves or others firstly is not something that medicine can necessarily determine so why should a doctor make this determination?

Secondly, it is an absurd and ludicrous determination to say that someone is a danger to themselves. or others. etc. etc. Everyone is potentially a danger to themselves or others.
And there's not really much else to it than that.

There is no distinction between a "mentally ill" offender or potential offender and a "non-mentally ill" offender or potential offender.
The category "mentally ill person" does not and cannot exist.