3 ms·

That’s the tact that Oregon has taken, and I can see the logic in it. But as a doctor I find it more palletable to explicitly try to work in someone’s best inte

That’s the tact that Oregon has taken, and I can see the logic in it. But as a doctor I find it more palletable to explicitly try to work in someone’s best interest than to send them to jail/prison. I am obviously biased, but I have seen hundreds of people get well and go on to live lives that they themselves would identify as more rewarding. Deprivation is, and should continue to be a very big deal. But when it becomes necessary, I’d rather that it be focused on the best interest of a person who’s not in a position to recognize their own circumstances. Clearly it’s a value judgement and there’s no one right answer. It depends on which of two bad options you find least offensive.

hirundo 8y ago
> Psychiatry possesses an inherent capacity for abuse that is greater than in other areas of medicine. The diagnosis of mental disease can give the state license to detain persons against their will and insist upon therapy both in the interest of the detainee and in the broader interests of society. In addition, receiving a psychiatric diagnosis can in itself be regarded as oppressive. In a monolithic state, psychiatry can be used to bypass standard legal procedures for establishing guilt or innocence and allow political incarceration without the ordinary odium attaching to such political trials. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_... Is that "inherent capacity for abuse" overstated? I'm less afraid of the corrupt psychiatrist than of the one sincerely convinced that people who think like I do are sick.
- phren0logy 8y ago
  It is real and relevant, and already accounted for in the concerts about limiting personal liberty. The usual mechanism to address this is to require more than one clinically trained person to agree, which holds them for a few days until it can be heard in court and decided by a judge. This requires it only illness but immediate danger to self or others. This has had the unintended consequence of conflating mental illness with violence. Always trade offs...
  - 75dvtwin 8y ago
    WRT > The usual mechanism to address this is to require more than one clinically trained person to agree, which holds them for a few days until it can be heard in court and decided by a judge. It seems the above would only work (meaning that it would prevent abuse) if: a) the 'clinically trained persons' affiliate with different political fractions b) there is no 'federal-level' oversight hammer that can strip them of their credentials for testifying against the wants of the currently ruling political fractions c) The judiciary system overall is free from 'selective-outrage' ( Which is, unfortunately, some would say, not the case for US, Canada, France, UK, Australia, not even mentioning known oligarch/dictatorships countries out there )

hirundo 8y ago

> Psychiatry possesses an inherent capacity for abuse that is greater than in other areas of medicine. The diagnosis of mental disease can give the state license to detain persons against their will and insist upon therapy both in the interest of the detainee and in the broader interests of society. In addition, receiving a psychiatric diagnosis can in itself be regarded as oppressive. In a monolithic state, psychiatry can be used to bypass standard legal procedures for establishing guilt or innocence and allow political incarceration without the ordinary odium attaching to such political trials. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_... Is that "inherent capacity for abuse" overstated? I'm less afraid of the corrupt psychiatrist than of the one sincerely convinced that people who think like I do are sick.

phren0logy 8y ago
It is real and relevant, and already accounted for in the concerts about limiting personal liberty. The usual mechanism to address this is to require more than one clinically trained person to agree, which holds them for a few days until it can be heard in court and decided by a judge. This requires it only illness but immediate danger to self or others. This has had the unintended consequence of conflating mental illness with violence. Always trade offs...
- 75dvtwin 8y ago
  WRT > The usual mechanism to address this is to require more than one clinically trained person to agree, which holds them for a few days until it can be heard in court and decided by a judge. It seems the above would only work (meaning that it would prevent abuse) if: a) the 'clinically trained persons' affiliate with different political fractions b) there is no 'federal-level' oversight hammer that can strip them of their credentials for testifying against the wants of the currently ruling political fractions c) The judiciary system overall is free from 'selective-outrage' ( Which is, unfortunately, some would say, not the case for US, Canada, France, UK, Australia, not even mentioning known oligarch/dictatorships countries out there )