Do you support the separation of psychiatry and state?

Do you support the separation of psychiatry and state?
I do.

[video=youtube;pF0VZNgi1-I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF0VZNgi1-I[/video]

 

I think we should intervene if someone says they want to commit suicide. Usually people that make threats like this are so overwhelmed, they just don't know what else to do. I believe it's a cry for help.

 

I recommend the book Fatal Freedom by Dr. Thomas Szasz. In that book of his and others he offers many reasons why suicide should be a right, even though it may not be something good or morally desirable.

He would argue that it is only a cry for help if they ask for help. They should be offered help, but "help" should not be forced upon them. If "help" is forced upon someone then it is not help, it is coercion and/or torture.

 

I would think that if if you TRULY believes in "freedom of choice", that you would also support suicide, drug abuse, prostitution, etc...

 

Honestly, I just don't want to buy the book. Any day now, I'm expecting to get a book in the mail. It's Beauty by Roger Scruton. If you're interested in philosophy watch this video. Why Beauty Matters with Roger Scruton, it's an hour long, but a wonderful video. I did pull up this review out of curiosity, to see what argument he could possibly make. He completely dismisses the idea that someone threatening suicide could be mentally ill, or suffering and crying out for help.

 

Dr. Szasz questions the existence of mental illness. He says the mind cannot really be ill, just like a joke cannot really be sick. I'm not sure I agree with all of what you say in that last sentence.

 

Is it just the term mental illness that is objectionable in that it implies they have a disease?

Here's a true story. I can't remember the girls name right now, but I might later. I know it's on YouTube. Anyway, there was this deeply disturbed little girl. She was adopted when she was about 2 years old, before that, she had been sexually molested by her "real" father. As she grew up, she started hurting animals, then torturing her little brother. She started hiding knives, and had imminent plans to kill her adopted parents. She had no empathy. No emotion. She didn't feel. She wasn't interested in therapy. It was against her will at the time. She didn't comprehend her behavior was wrong. Her parents couldn't handle her for that time. She went under a 24/7 psychiatric program. She was diagnosed as a psychopath. The program was tailored to that specific problem. It took years. Amazingly, she's much better now. She learned empathy, and it caused her hurtful and destructive behavior to stop. However, if she had just been stuck in juvenile detention, without the psychiatric treatment to address this specific problem, she would be very dangerous, and most likely, unable to move on to a happier life.

 

I'm not commenting on minors in this thread. If an adult was doing that they would be breaking the law and they should not be treated in the psychiatric system, they should be dealt with in the criminal system. That is my opinion.

 

Here's a different story of an adult. How about a single mother that just gave birth a month ago. She's been having a hard time. It could be postpartum depression, it could be something else. The extended family doesn't really understand what's going on. They want her to seek mental health care, she refuses. Her behavior is becoming progressively bizarre. She's been talking about suicide. Now, she says that the voices won't stop in her head. They're telling her the baby is evil and to kill her baby. Has she committed a crime? No. Yet, the baby is in danger. Does the baby have any rights?

 

The baby might be in danger. Did anyone ask this mother if she would ever listen to the voice that she supposedly hears? If she has not committed a crime, then she should be able to exercise the right to be left alone. The baby has just as many rights as any other baby, of course. The mother should also just have just as many rights as any other mother.

 

In other words, ignore the fact this mother is psychotic and hearing voices that her newborn is evil and must be killed. We should just hope for the best, right?

 

If she is planning on killing her child, and it can be proven in a court of law, then she should face the appropriate punishment and arrest. If she is breaking a law, then she should be arrested like anyone else, if an arrest is warranted and not just a violation requiring a citation or something like that. If she hears voices telling her to kill her child and that her child is evil, but she does not agree with the voice, and refuses to listen to it, and can safely and competently parent her child (and without breaking any laws), then of course she should be left alone, if she wants to be left alone. If she is a law abiding citizen, then she should be left alone.

Planning to kill someone is breaking a law as far as I understand. So if she is planning to kill her child, whether she hears voices or not, it seems she is breaking a law.

Why might this hypothetical woman be considered "mentally ill", but the thousands of humans who kill and/or try to kill in the name Allah considered "terrorists" or "enemy combatants" instead of being "mentally ill"? Should they all be considered "mentally ill" and be given forced treatment instead of war and/or arrest?

 

With this hypothetical woman, she may have a temporary condition, such as postpartum depression, and it is very treatable. I wouldn't stand by and allow her to kill herself. I just wouldn't. Death is very permanent, there is no going back. A forced 24-72 hour psychiatric observation, with follow up treatment - well, it's not the end of the world. She could act out her suicide threats, she could kill the baby, we've seen stuff like this in the news. Many times other people are the victims of the mentally ill, it is not only the rights of the disturbed person I'm worried about. And someone "killing for Allah", YES, I THINK THEY ARE INSANE, ABSOLUTELY!

 

So is wanting to kill in the name of Allah a treatable condition, like depression, diabetes or many cancers?
What about someone with depression who is forced to undergo 3 days of treatment and it does not work? What if they want to kill their own self for years? Should they just be locked up for years and forced to live in a psychiatric hospital (essentially a prison in that case)?
With the case of the mother, if she just had a child, I might support forcing her to take care of it for 18 years and then suicide could be an option. But maybe the child would be better off in foster care, other family or an adopted family if the mother simply could not be persuaded to choose to live.
Suicide should be a right. It does not mean that it is morally desirable or good, but each human should have to the right to live, or not live if they want to, and cannot be persuaded to do otherwise.

 

I don't know. It might be possible in certain cases. Saudi Arabia has a terrorist rehabilitation program, not sure how successful it is? It's not legal, but I know deprogramming has been used to counteract cult brainwashing.

Yes.

What a miserable life for that child. And, once the child is 18 yrs. they would suffer the incredible pain of losing their mother to suicide.

Suicidal feelings are not typically long-lasting. Except, if they're allowed to take their life, then it's permanent.

In reality, we all have the ability to choose life or death. If someone truly wanted to commit suicide they could. It's just that you want society to stand idly by while they do it.

 

"In reality, we all have the ability to choose life or death. If someone truly wanted to commit suicide they could. It's just that you want society to stand idly by while they do it."

No. That is not true. I am not stating that anyone should be idle. I'm fine with and support helpers and family using persuasion and reason to try and stop someone from ending their life. I just don't support the use of coercion and/or force to stop an adult from ending their own life.

I still recommend the book Fatal Freedom by Dr. Thomas Szasz if you want to try and fully see both sides of the cases for and against abolishing psychiatric slavery. I recommend all his books, really.

 

Suicide is a prerogative of the individual and nothing to do with anybody else, although in our muddle minded society, it is often treated by law as a crime or an admission of insanity. Nonsense.

Truly dedicated and clear thinking people do not go around saying they intend suicide - they do it ! Threatening to commit suicide is just a cry for help in the hope that somebody will stop them by giving unlimited assistance.

I once saw an incident reported where a person was standing on top of a building threatening to jump unless they got preferential treatment for some medical problem. There were firefighters, police and negotiators there, pleading for the guy to come down. eventually he got his treatment by being pushed in front of many other patients on the waiting list. Personally, I would have told him to go round the back of the building where there was grass, so he did not make a dreadful mess on the concrete for somebody to clear up.

AND suicidal tendencies are NOT always the result of a person being mentally ill, such intentions are often the well thought out remedies for some monumental personal problems which cannot be solved or lived with and the only solution is death.

Proof ? The brave Japanese Kamikaze pilots of WW2 were not raving lunatics, they were perfectly sane and voluntarily went to their deaths in dedication for a cause, in exactly the same way as insurmountable financial burdens or other massive problems can affect a person in civilian life. There are countless cases of perfectly sane suicides, the hijackers of 9/11 being amongst them.

Me ? My life is mine alone, nothing to do with anybody else, certainly not the State and it is MY choice what I do with it and when.

 

It's ideal if one has a good support system with family and friends that care. Some people don't have that.

We may just have to agree to disagree on this point. With rare exceptions, if a person is an imminent danger to themselves or others, I do support involuntary intervention.

I just got the book I've been waiting for in the mail! Yay!!

But I may read Fatal Freedom someday.

 

I appreciate your well articulated reply.

"We may just have to agree to disagree on this point. With rare exceptions, if a person is an imminent danger to themselves or others, I do support involuntary intervention."

One justification for forcing Africans to be slaves in the past was they they were actually being supposedly helped by being slaves of white men. Even though they said they did not really want to be slaves, the argument was that it was actually good for everyone involved. Was it really? There was even a proposed psychological disorder called "drapetomania". Wikipedia says about it, "drapetomania was a supposed mental illness described by American physician Samuel A. Cartwright in 1851 that caused black slaves to flee captivity." Wikipedia also says, "In addition to identifying drapetomania, Cartwright prescribed a remedy. His feeling was that with 'proper medical advice, strictly followed, this troublesome practice that many Negroes have of running away can be almost entirely prevented.' In the case of slaves 'sulky and dissatisfied without cause' – a warning sign of imminent flight – Cartwright prescribed 'whipping the devil out of them' as a 'preventative measure'. As a remedy for this 'disease,' doctors also made running a physical impossibility by prescribing the removal of both big toes." So are involuntary psychiatric patients really being helped anymore than the slave from Africa was in the 1800's? I'm all for someone having the option to receive voluntary psychiatric treatment, as long as there is no potential for any force or coercion to be involved. I hope you enjoy your new book. I hope you read eBooks. They take up so much less space an weigh so much less.

 

Even then, they thought that was silly. From the same Wikipedia article:

Yes. At the least, it will interrupt the suicide plan to give them more time for reflection.

I know.

I do read ebooks. But usually for something kind of impersonal, instructional. With books that I treasure, I always want the "real" book.