I don't necessarily fully agree with what I'm about to say, but it's a logical conclusion I came to while reading this: If a psychotic person is considered inc

I don't necessarily fully agree with what I'm about to say, but it's a logical conclusion I came to while reading this: If a psychotic person is considered incapable of consent, then it should be especially wrong to commit them, even voluntarily. A lack of ability to consent does not imply consent, which is a doctrine that's critical to concepts like statutory rape. I don't think that the argument that people incapable of rejecting treatment with a sound mind should be treated _because_ of that incapability holds too much water. Subjectively, I agree with the author that much of this treatment is necessary. But objectively, it's hard to fit it into a (or, at least, my personal) framework of consent. Don't take this response personally - this is mostly me pointing out an inconsistency in my own personal philosophy.