Involuntary treatment

You don't need to be Editor-In-Chief to add or edit content to WikiDoc. You can begin to add to or edit text on this WikiDoc page by clicking on the edit button at the top of this page. Next enter or edit the information that you would like to appear here. Once you are done editing, scroll down and click the Save page button at the bottom of the page.

Image:Unbalanced scales.svg

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

Image:Gnome-globe.svg

The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

Involuntary treatment (also referred to by proponents as assisted treatment and by critics as forced drugging) refers to medical treatment undertaken without a person's consent. In almost all circumstances, involuntary treatment refers to psychiatric treatment administered despite an individual's objections. These are typically individuals who have been diagnosed with a mental illness and are deemed to be a danger to themselves or others.

In 1975, the United States Supreme Court ruled in O'Connor v. Donaldson that involuntary hospitalization and/or treatment violates an individual's civil rights. The individual must be exhibiting behavior that is a danger to himself or others and a court order must be received for more that a 72 hour hold. The treatment must take place in the least restrictive setting possible. This ruling has severely limited involuntary treatment and hospitalization in the United States.^[1] In the United States the statutes vary from state to state.^[1]

Further, the case of Rennie v. Klein established that an involuntarily committed individual has a qualified constitutional right to refuse psychotropic medication.^[1] However, in Washington v. Harper the Supreme Court upheld the involuntary medication of incarcerated inmates under certain conditions that it set forth.^[1]

Justifications and criticisms

Justification for involuntary treatment is often attempted by emphasizing the potential for severe consequences that may result from lack of treatment, such as homelessness, victimization, suicide, violence. However, critics argue that psychiatric treatment can also have severe consequences such as misdiagnosis, psychiatric assault and disabling drug side effects.

Involuntary treatment is generally undertaken at the behest of family members. Supporters of involuntary treatment include mainstream organizations such as the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) and the American Psychiatric Association. Involuntary treatment's biggest supporter in the United States is the Treatment Advocacy Center.

Anti-psychiatry groups, loosely allied with members of the psychiatric survivors movement, vigorously oppose involuntary treatment on civil rights grounds. Also, critics oppose involuntary treatment because of the significant potential for side effects, ranging from mild to severe structural brain damage, and because of its emphasis upon enforcing compliance via chemical restraints over practices aimed at achieving mental health. Critics, such as the New York Civil Liberties Union, have denounced the strong racial and socioeconomic biases in forced treatment orders.^[1][1]

The Church of Scientology is also aggressively opposed to involuntary treatment, although its methods of dealing with mental disorders (e.g., Introversion Rundown) have led to tragedies such as the confinement and death of Lisa McPherson.

Methods

Psychiatric treatment primarily involves psychotropic medications, such as antidepressants, mood stabilizers, tranquillizers and 'anti-psychotic' or neuroleptic medication. These medications are generally considered effective by the medical community in treating severe and persistent mental illness [1] although they have common adverse side effects. Opponents of treatment point to other studies that suggest that long-range outcomes are much worse with treatment.[2] Involuntary treatment can also include commitment to a psychiatric ward and electroconvulsive therapy (also known as electroshock).

Mental health law

Every state in the US allows for some form of involuntary treatment, although criteria vary.[3] Since the late 1990s, a growing number of states have adopted Assisted Outpatient Commitment (AOC) laws.[4]

Under 'assisted' outpatient commitment, people committed involuntarily can live outside the psychiatric hospital, sometimes under strict conditions including reporting to mandatory psychiatric appointments, taking psychiatric drugs in the presence of a nursing team, and proving medication blood levels. Forty-two states presently allow for outpatient commitment. [5]

Effects of involuntary medication

In some studies, the majority of people retrospectively agreed that involuntary medication had been in their best interest, with little or no consideration given to those who disagreed with their treatment. Anecdotal reports from opponents of involuntary medication, indicating that involuntary treatment has widespread, devastating, and lasting effects, are downplayed by studies cited by supporters, including TAC.[6] However, other studies cast much doubt on the efficacy of involuntary treatment.[7]

See also

• Anti-psychiatry
• E. Fuller Torrey
• Involuntary commitment – a long and detailed article dealing also with political imprisonment
• Laura's Law
• Medical ethics
• MindFreedom International
• New Freedom Commission on Mental Health
• Social control
• DSM-IV Codes
• Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID)

References

External links

• National Mental Health Consumers' Self-Help Clearinghouse
• Psychlaws.org - 'Keys to Commitment' (a guide for family members), Robert J. Kaplan, JD
• Rogers Law, concerning involuntary treatment/commitment in Massachusettsde:Unterbringung