Tuesday, March 29, 2005
power & psychiatry
involuntary committal is a contentious subject in mental health. recently i came across a story that nicely highlights its danger. this situation's extreme nature serves as a reminder that health professionals are just as likely to abuse power as anyone else:
actually, it is not clear to me that we must involuntarily commit at all. if we take seriously the concept of self-ownership (a dubious assumption), only those who willingly choose to enter such facilities, or those ordered by courts in lieu of or along with criminal punishment, would do so. even those individuals presenting a threat to or actually harming themselves could not be committed, as with total self-ownership comes the right to destroy one's property.
the rest of the cases would involve a citizen or official's feeling that the individual poses a threat to others. i've mentioned earlier that it's very dangerous to make legal decisions on grounds as subjective as feelings, but in addition this preemptive condition means we're jailing people who have done nothing wrong but instead look like they someday might. law has dealt with cases such as these before, in particular as regards stalking and threats of homicide. it is not clear to me why we should handle the mentally "ill" differently, except in their treatment if convicted.
A Longboat Key psychologist has been sentenced to ten weekends in jail for lying on forms to involuntarily commit a griping neighbor who later died. Holli Bodner had a yearlong feud with Jean Pierre Villar about street lights and dog poop before committing him to a mental health center in April 2003.psychiatric hospitals are often frightening and dehumanizing places. they are similar to jails and should be taken seriously. if we must involuntarily commit, lawmakers should narrowly designate who should receive that onerous power or restructure the sentencing rules to allow more objective sentencing. even criminals get a trial by elected official, whereas the mentally "ill" are often "jailed" without due process.
actually, it is not clear to me that we must involuntarily commit at all. if we take seriously the concept of self-ownership (a dubious assumption), only those who willingly choose to enter such facilities, or those ordered by courts in lieu of or along with criminal punishment, would do so. even those individuals presenting a threat to or actually harming themselves could not be committed, as with total self-ownership comes the right to destroy one's property.
the rest of the cases would involve a citizen or official's feeling that the individual poses a threat to others. i've mentioned earlier that it's very dangerous to make legal decisions on grounds as subjective as feelings, but in addition this preemptive condition means we're jailing people who have done nothing wrong but instead look like they someday might. law has dealt with cases such as these before, in particular as regards stalking and threats of homicide. it is not clear to me why we should handle the mentally "ill" differently, except in their treatment if convicted.
Labels: decision making, misc. psych
the trackback URL for "power & psychiatry" is: http://haloscan.com/tb/sullifred/111118751201050621
trackbacks for this post temporarily listed here
Post a Comment