3 ms·

I find this a very hard point to deal with as well. If sickness is defined as a function of your own perception of how it limits you (analogous to "freedom"),

I find this a very hard point to deal with as well. If sickness is defined as a function of your own perception of how it limits you (analogous to "freedom"), that's fine for all illnesses that don't affect your perception. But in some cases like psychosis and schizophrenia, the illness directly affects your perception... your definiton of freedom; your definition of illness; it doesn't work anymore.

amelius 8y ago
Instead of calling it "curing", one could view it as "self improvement". As an analogy: most children don't like to go to school, and have no intuitive feeling of why it is useful, but of course they should have proper education.
- afpx 8y ago
  Reminds me of the famous Pink Floyd song.
- lmm 8y ago
  Does going to school actually help them enough to justify the unpleasantness of it? What I've read from unschoolers suggests: often not.
xattt 8y ago
Your own free will and speech is usually bounded by the assumption that you will not encroach on others' personal rights and freedoms. Schizophrenia may carry some risk that one individual will incorrectly perceive reality, and cause harm to another person or animal. It is this risk that makes mandatory treatment necessary.
- wpietri 8y ago
  Not really. Many schizophrenics are perfectly harmless. And there are many abusive people who are not schizophrenic at all. If risk of harm to others were the only thing that justified mandatory treatment, we could reasonably treat anybody with a conviction for a great number of crimes.