5 ms·

>You can't force them to use detox clinics, etc. Maybe it is not possible yet legally, but why shouldn't we allow this? The courts can already force people to

>You can't force them to use detox clinics, etc. Maybe it is not possible yet legally, but why shouldn't we allow this? The courts can already force people to be commited for mental afflictions when they are a danger to themselves or others. Why not do the same for (heavy) drug addicts who start becoming a liability?

danharaj 11y ago
Forced mental treatment has been the source of a great many atrocities by the state over the decades.
DanBC 11y ago
It doesn't work unless the person wants to recover. That's apart from the human rights violation.
- Shivetya 11y ago
  Clue me in, what is the human rights violation? Or better yet, in descending order what are they in regards to those needing help but refusing it and possibly endangering themselves or others?
  - kefka 11y ago
    I certainly understand why there's strife around this. Mental drugs cause a lot of effects, including causing other problems. They usually cause you to feel like you're in a cloud of anti-emotion. It really sucks when you want to feel stuff. Worse yet, are other side effects like tardive dyskinesia and tremors and things. And those, once you get them, don't go away. What I gather, the only really humane way to handle mental health problems relating to homelessness is to medically arrest them, have a panel of doctors whom medicate according to the mental disease, wait until the drugs take effect (upwards to 6 weeks), and then explain what's going on and how they wish to continue. If the patient wants to stay on drugs, awesome: they should be provided free of charge. Along with that, governmental services they may have turned down prior can be reactivated and put into motion to assist them. Or... if they don't want help/treatment, they should sign a paper stating that they were medicated, informed, and that they wish to not be on drugs and live on the street. At this time, they are released to live as they choose. And this "medical arrest" to inform them of their rights would never happen again. That's a one-time affair. This "Arrest" would happen once, and would be done to provide informed consent. We already acknowledge that things like contracts and the like can't be made while on drugs, alcohol, or under duress. There's no reason why mental defects that cause effects like drugs can't also be grouped in with this. This sounds to be the most fair..
  - yoo1I 11y ago
    > needing help, refusing it and possibly endangering themselves and others? Sounds like most drivers I know...
  - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
    Tell me everything about your life, and I could envision a situation where an aspect of yourself could be considered too "abnormal" or "dangerous" in action or thought to be left untreated. If people haven't harmed anybody, then they themselves shouldn't be harmed, even if professionals believe it is help. Removing that barrier opens the door to arbitrary treatment and involuntary commitment, the likes of which not seen since the 19th century.
    - Coding_Cat 11y ago
      Well, again, involuntary commitment for mental afflictions is a thing. So it has surely been a thing in the 20th and 21st century. Of course, you don't get commited on basis of a diagnosis alone (AFAIK), but I would expect a similar criteria of "a danger to themselves or others" to be set for drug abuse as has been set in that case.
      - DanBC 11y ago
        "Danger to yourself" pretty much means "suicidal".
  - DanBC 11y ago
    People have the right to decline medical treatment, even if it means they will die as a result. This can only be over ridden if the person doesn't have the capacity to make that choice - if they're a child, or have a learning disability[1] or have a severe mental illness that affects their ability to make choices.
- ryanlol 11y ago
  Human rights clearly aren't a big deal to most governments, the involuntary commitment mentioned by the GP is a perfect example.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    I don't know about the US, but in the UK there's a bunch of protection built in to the system and it's been tested by the courts, including European court of human rights.
basseq 11y ago
Especially considering the alternative is forced incarceration. Mandatory treatment at least focuses on improvement.
- BinaryIdiot 11y ago
  Mandatory treatment can also mean forced incarceration though. It's hard to get out of a mental hospital if the government picked you up and put you there. Not saying I know the answer though.

danharaj 11y ago

Forced mental treatment has been the source of a great many atrocities by the state over the decades.

DanBC 11y ago

It doesn't work unless the person wants to recover. That's apart from the human rights violation.

Shivetya 11y ago
Clue me in, what is the human rights violation? Or better yet, in descending order what are they in regards to those needing help but refusing it and possibly endangering themselves or others?
- kefka 11y ago
  I certainly understand why there's strife around this. Mental drugs cause a lot of effects, including causing other problems. They usually cause you to feel like you're in a cloud of anti-emotion. It really sucks when you want to feel stuff. Worse yet, are other side effects like tardive dyskinesia and tremors and things. And those, once you get them, don't go away. What I gather, the only really humane way to handle mental health problems relating to homelessness is to medically arrest them, have a panel of doctors whom medicate according to the mental disease, wait until the drugs take effect (upwards to 6 weeks), and then explain what's going on and how they wish to continue. If the patient wants to stay on drugs, awesome: they should be provided free of charge. Along with that, governmental services they may have turned down prior can be reactivated and put into motion to assist them. Or... if they don't want help/treatment, they should sign a paper stating that they were medicated, informed, and that they wish to not be on drugs and live on the street. At this time, they are released to live as they choose. And this "medical arrest" to inform them of their rights would never happen again. That's a one-time affair. This "Arrest" would happen once, and would be done to provide informed consent. We already acknowledge that things like contracts and the like can't be made while on drugs, alcohol, or under duress. There's no reason why mental defects that cause effects like drugs can't also be grouped in with this. This sounds to be the most fair..
- yoo1I 11y ago
  > needing help, refusing it and possibly endangering themselves and others? Sounds like most drivers I know...
- rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
  Tell me everything about your life, and I could envision a situation where an aspect of yourself could be considered too "abnormal" or "dangerous" in action or thought to be left untreated. If people haven't harmed anybody, then they themselves shouldn't be harmed, even if professionals believe it is help. Removing that barrier opens the door to arbitrary treatment and involuntary commitment, the likes of which not seen since the 19th century.
  - Coding_Cat 11y ago
    Well, again, involuntary commitment for mental afflictions is a thing. So it has surely been a thing in the 20th and 21st century. Of course, you don't get commited on basis of a diagnosis alone (AFAIK), but I would expect a similar criteria of "a danger to themselves or others" to be set for drug abuse as has been set in that case.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      "Danger to yourself" pretty much means "suicidal".
- DanBC 11y ago
  People have the right to decline medical treatment, even if it means they will die as a result. This can only be over ridden if the person doesn't have the capacity to make that choice - if they're a child, or have a learning disability[1] or have a severe mental illness that affects their ability to make choices.
ryanlol 11y ago
Human rights clearly aren't a big deal to most governments, the involuntary commitment mentioned by the GP is a perfect example.
- DanBC 11y ago
  I don't know about the US, but in the UK there's a bunch of protection built in to the system and it's been tested by the courts, including European court of human rights.

basseq 11y ago

Especially considering the alternative is forced incarceration. Mandatory treatment at least focuses on improvement.

BinaryIdiot 11y ago
Mandatory treatment can also mean forced incarceration though. It's hard to get out of a mental hospital if the government picked you up and put you there. Not saying I know the answer though.