Psychiatry Exposed

[Rayaan]

This is, as far as I'm aware, *not* how the law is interpreted. "Immanent risk of injuring self or others" refers to overt acts (e.g. suicide attempt and/or violence against others).

The imminent risk to self or others is not actually limited to overt acts only. According to something known as a "need for treatment" standard, violence and suicide attempts are not amongst the actions that are necessary in order for people to be categorized as being a risk to themselves (or others).

"Typically, a need-for-treatment standard requires a finding that the person’s mental illness prevents him from seeking help on a voluntary basis and, if not treated, will cause him severe suffering and harm his health. Need-for-treatment laws make commitment available to the person who suffers greatly in the grip of severe mental illness, even if he manages to meet his basic survival needs and exhibits no violent or suicidal tendencies." - TAC report, 2014

Furthermore, this "need for treatment" standard for psychiatric patients is so cunningly flexible in some states that it regards non-compliance with treatment as a predictive indicator that the patients may become "dangerous to self or others." They can be deemed "dangerous" simply for not complying with treatment. A good example of such an interpretation of the standard is Idaho's law, which applies to any mentally ill person who:

"lacks insight into his need for treatment and is unable or unwilling to comply with treatment and, based on his psychiatric history, clinical observation or other clinical evidence, if he does not receive and comply with treatment, there is a substantial risk he will continue to physically, emotionally or mentally deteriorate to the point that the person will, in the reasonably near future, inflict physical harm on himself or another person."

Therefore anyone can be involuntarily committed if they meet the "need-for-treatment"standard. For emphasis: Not will, but can be committed, under the law.

Back in the 1950's, you might be on to something - getting an involuntary commitment back then was pretty easy. Not so today.

I agree that it was easier back then, but it happens today also. A minority of psychiatric patients do get involuntarily admitted and forced to take drugs against their will.

Are patients in psych hospitals forced to take medications?

Involuntary Psychiatric Interventions: A Breach of the Hippocratic Oath?

Coercion in Psychiatric Care: Global and Indian Perspective

I don't believe "disorder" is a part of the label for V15.81.

It might not be.

But either way, the dodgy part is that the "Noncompliance with Treatment" label can be used as a coercive technique for getting patients treated against their will. It only furthers the stifling of their right to personal autonomy and self-determination. People with mental illnesses who are unwilling to comply with medical treatment - even if they are not presently violent nor suicidal in any way - may still be classified as belonging in the predicted "risk to self or others" population, and thereby they can be pushed into the "need-for-treatment" standard because of being a predicted risk to themselves in the "reasonably near future."

Wait ... Are psychiatrists the new psychics or something?

Scientology cult propaganda through one of it's front groups, citizens commission on human rights. Their cultist agenda is to discredit mental health supplanting it with l ron hubbard's scientology.

http://www.xenu.net/archive/infopack/12.htm

It's not really a cultist agenda. The points in the OP about psychiatry resonate thoroughly with the views of some of the most outstanding psychiatrists, authors, and experts on the subject, and I've already given a substantial amount of sources pointing to them in this thread so far. You should click on those links and read them if you haven't done that. And then if you think that any of the information you read is inaccurate or fabricated, then simply prove it.

* * * * * * * * * *

@ Bad Writer: I'm not saying that all drugs are bad, nor that the entire field of psychiatry is bullshit. My criticisms were more about how psychiatry is practiced in the US specifically. It might be different in other places. But here in America there is too much incentive for psychiatrists to prescribe drugs as compared to counselling people on how to change their habits, their lifestyle, teaching them coping mechanisms, and other practical ways of dealing with their problems. Psychiatry should take a more balanced and holistic treatment rather than having such a heavy reliance on medications.

As I've said already, I don't deny that there are good psychiatrists and good psychiatric programs out there, but on the whole psychiatry is getting more and more overeclipsed by the pharmaceutical industry which as a result is causing psychiatrists to feel more nonchalant in just throwing some pills at their patients. Research on the current system of psychiatry has shown that it has an unrelenting ability to exploit people by selling drugs to them, although it can help them also.

I also posted new studies which concede that antidepressants cause more harm than good. Then, you disagreed with that, but you haven't presented anything convincing to support your position. Where is the evidence that the benefits of antidepressants "by far outweigh the risks"? I gave several well-researched sources to back up what I said here, and you can't discredit them simply with your own words. First read, research, provide the evidence, and then connect the dots.