Tell me, please, how implanting a pump to administer medicines the person should already be taking compares to the irreversible physcial mutilation of a lobotomy?
:rolleyes:
For what it’s worth, a lot of people who are mentally ill are very much against any sort of forced incarceration/meds and believe they have the right to refuse medicine just like a diabetic can. This would probably make an excellent Great Debate if anyone wants to post it there with both sides of the arguement.
Zette
Not to diminish the problems you have within your family but please know this PHD is full of shit. Bipolar effects everyone who has it differently and that is an extremely broad stroke that is incredibly wrong. Not all those with bipolar become suicidally depressed or even consider suicide a valid option, not all with bipolar spend wads of cash either, there are as many differences in symptomology as there are people with the disorder.
Particularly since an implanted medication pump is at least potentially reversible, and a lobotomy is not?
I had a mentally ill sister who, fortunately, was not a danger to others although in the end she most certainly was a danger to herself. (Hence, use of “had” instead of “have”)
We allowed her to go her own way, to use or not use what medication was available. Then again, she chose not to become a mother and stayed away from the neices and nephews when having a bad episode. She was, despite the mental problems, very intelligent and rational even though her emotions could run amok.
Each mentally ill or “mentally different” person is unique and each situation needs to be evaluated on it’s own merits. But, while a person may have the right to refuse treatment they do NOT have the right to endanger or inflict pain on another. It’s a sign of how fucked up our society is that many people do not recognize mental pain and suffering as REAL pain and suffering, just as real as physical damage.
If a young child is involved that changes the picture. The child needs an environment that’s best for the child, not an environment to appease adult agendas.
If you tried to hook me up with such a pump without my permission, I would be within my moral rights to kill you, and would do so.
To force someone to take mind-altering chemicals on an ongoing basis without their consent is considerably more of a violation than anything that should be remotely legal.
Zette:
Thank you Zette. Yes, we’re mad and we’re organized. (Well, sort of. Please ignore the state of our current nationals :rolleyes: But we are politically active at any rate)
Glancing back over this thread once more, I am struck by the following:
If Chas E’s sister has indeed been deemed incompetent in a competency hearing (a legal process of which I approve), she by definition can’t possibly be the legal guardian of her children and for that matter does, again by definition, have someone appointed to be her own guardian, unless the hearing has JUST transpired and the final determinations of guardianship have not been completed. That is the nature of a competency hearing.
If Chas E was equivocating (unintentionally if so, I would imagine) between a competency hearing and a psychiatric commitment hearing, I must point out that even a person who has been deemed to be “mentally ill and a danger to self and/or others” (the traditional commitment standard) has the legal right to refuse medication even in a locked inpatient setting. This right was established in New York in the court case Rivers & Zatz vs Katz; legal opinions in other states (let along outside of the United States) may vary.
But they should not. In fact, commitment hearings themselves should be unconstitutional, since they are mechanisms for locking up a person involuntarily on the basis of what they might do. In the absence of a competency hearing, (which, as I said previously, respects due process and protects individual rights), the individual, whether “normal”, “schizophrenic”, “bipolar”, or discernably nuts in some other fashion, is entitled to the legal assumption of being capable of making decisions (and living with their consequences).
The potential for abuse of the power to commit (and to impose forced treatment) is not hypothetical, we’re talking real world and genuinely nasty abuse here, folks.
So you know what you can do with your pump, right?
Yes, I made a broader generalization here than the book really did, but her assertion is that seriously bipolar cases with a record of suicide attempts will eventually succeed unless they continue on meds. Of course the less serious cases are not necessarily terminal, and perhaps many even go undiagnosed. But I’m talking about extreme, serious cases here.
But ooh those spending binges… The PhD wrote about her own experiences. She described how she was thinking of taking a vacation out west, and became posessed with the idea she would encounter poisonous snakes. Before she came down from her manic binge, she bought thousands of dollars of books on herpetology and six snake bite kits. And of course she never ever got out west on vacation. So whenever we see incidents like sis buying $2000 of christmas cookies, we just roll our eyes and ask each other, “what, no snake bite kits?”
Anyway, she is gone and far far away, where other people have to deal with her. I wish them luck. They’ll need it.
AHunter3:
If you try to kill me because you aren’t on your meds (assuming for the nonce you are, in fact, a candidate for the kind of meds I’m talking about) I would be well within my rights to kill you. If you try to kill anyone else when I’m around, I would be within my moral rights (if not my legal rights) to kill you.
I do not like the idea of killing people.
Are you telling me that we as a society don’t have the power to stop you from being, and I quote, ‘dangerous to yourself or others’? I would say we do. We lock people up in state-run locked mental wards all the time. We do this as a humane alternative to prison for those who we think would benefit by therapy.
A locked ward implies that the patients cannot be trusted to use their own judgement to check themselves out.
Drugs have very benefical effects on people with certain illnesses, physical and mental (and, commonly, illnesses where the physical and the mental have a junction). A person can be sentenced to receive medication while on parole or house arrest. This is even more humane than the locked ward scenario (I know people who have worked in locked wards. That is the impression I get.) because it allows the person to enter society. If the person does not take the drugs, that person risks time in a place where they physically restrain him to get him to take his meds (such as a locked ward).
Again, the person is not trusted to make his own decisions regarding his treatment.
So, if the person is going to be sentenced to either a locked ward or parole on the condition that he take his meds, he has no say in the matter anyway. He will take his meds, or he will be put in a position where big men restrain him and force his mouth open and check under his tongue to see that he has, in fact, taken his meds.
If those are the options, an implantable pump is the humane thing to sentence someone to. Why? It’s the best of the house arrest scenario with no need to confine the person to a house where a responsible person can remind him of dosage schedules. A person with a pump could quite easily take up international travel, as long as he is back in the clinic for refills and, possibly, adjustments.
Does he have a right to refuse?
No.
Why?
He does not have a right to be a danger to others.
To use an example in the thread, Chas’s sister has no right to threaten to blame her suicide on him. She has no right to mentally damage her child by attempting suicide in front of him (or her). Debbie has no right to be dangerous by refusing to take her meds.
No person has a right to be a danger to others. That is why we have prisons. Human compassion is the reason we have locked wards. Going back 200 years, we chained the crazies in dungeons and beat them at the change of the lunar phase. Nobody wants to go back to that. Effective psychoactive drugs exist. Curing these diseases is within our reach. The pump is a convenience. The drugs are a necessity. The alternatives are unthinkable.
Derleth:
Yeah.
The “dangerous to yourself or others” finding is an opinion about what a person might do.
You most certainly do not have the right to mess around with my brain, interfering with my thoughts and my feelings, on the basis of your opinion (or Dr. Shrink’s professionally informed opinion for that matter) that I, in my current state of mind, might hurt someone if you don’t.
I have an acquaintance who is an “anarchist”. Not the same way I’m an anarchist, i.e., a person who believes a social order not based on a hierarchy of authority is both practical and desirable, but someone who believes in sabotage of industry and vandalism against the property of multinational corporations. He supports actions agains the international trade organizations.
Guess what? It isn’t legal to inject him with chemicals that would numb his mind to the point that he would be unable to maintain the anger and the clearheadedness of strategic planning necessary to carry out such activities.
In part, because he hasn’t done anything yet.
But guess what else? Even if he actually DOES something and gets arrested for it, tried, convicted, and imprisoned for these illegal activities, you still can’t shoot him up with chemicals as described without his consent.
We are entitled to the same rights. Our biochemistry is none of your goddam business, and even if we’ve disturbed the hell out of you with our disruptive behaviors, we should be subject to the same laws governing permissible and arrestible offenses and the rest of you. In short, schizophrenics, bipolars, paranoiacs, and depressives should have the same right to act like a jerk and not be incarcerated for it as salesmen, fraternity brothers, and sailors on shore leave.
The population of people diagnosed with some form of mental illness are not spectacularly more violent than a comparable control group, and we tend to suffer violence at the hands of “normal” people as often as vice versa.
If you come after me with the intention and equipment to forcibly medicate me with psychiatric meds, I already assume you would kill me, as you are in the process of attempting something comparable. If you come after someone else with similar intent, and that person appeals to me for help, I woudl be within my moral rights (if not my legal rights) to kill you then, too. (Given the opportunity, though, I’d inject you with the stuff you brought with you instead and see how well you like a headful of Prolixin)
Actually, before the mutual Death Threats get out of hand here–
a) I do not anticipate that you intend on physically forcing medication on me or anyone in my immediate environs;
b) I would never kill anyone if other options for ensuring my freedom were available to me, even if I deemed it to be within my rights to kill;
c) My main purpose in making these rather forceful statements was to convey the strength with which I hold these particular convictions, and, in particular, to convey to you how serious a threat I regard the suggestion of forcibly medicating psychiatrically diagnosed people against our will
d) I do not feel personally threatened by anyone who has participated in this thread, and regard any mention of the right to kill me as having been made in the same spirit.
e) I appreciate the existence of SDMB as a forum in which people with vastly divergent viewpoints and strong feelings on the subjects at hand can listen and learn from each other, even in the process of yelling and being very confrontational. I would ask that anyone reading through this thread experience it in this spirit.
So locking up felons isn’t rational because we can’t know what they might do? Nonsense! Past actions are the best guide to future behavior.
If someone comes at me, or anyone else I’m around, with mudererous intent, that person will be killed. No questions asked, no analysis of biochemistry done, no debating of philosophy performed. It is called self-defense. No, fuck that, it’s called SELF-PRESERVATION. A basic biological imperative.
I have more right to live than you have right to refuse medication.
I don’t know how to phrase it better than that. If you have a history of violent tendencies when not medicated, you have no right to be a potential threat by refusing medication.
Murderers are locked up, sometimes executed, because society (composed of individuals, remember) has a right to self-preservation. Society is a collective term for ‘the humans in a specific region’. As an individual has a right to ensure his own survival, a society has a right to ensure the survival of the individuals that comprise it. Medicating the violent has been shown to do that by reducing violent tendancies.
If you don’t like your medications, I feel for you. But not enough to risk my life or the lives of others. Pick the drugs that help you best. But take them, or else we will have to take more drastic measures.
The right of a person to defend himself is inalienable. Prisons, locked wards, state-mandated medication, etc. are self-defense by proxy, the proxy being the state (states are representatives of the people with powers delegated to them by their population). If a person is dangerous without medication, and has proven that by their prior actions, the state is within its rights to mandate the most effective treatment for that person. Self-defense by proxy. I am simply advocating another option that might make the most inconvenient aspects of that (locked wards, house arrest, prison) obsolete for some people.
Self-defense is fudamental, whether it is applied directly person-to-person or via the proxy of the state. You won’t convince me otherwise.
And if I’m coming at you with medications, I’m trying to help you. That’s why I’m using medicines, not a gun.
[Marlin Perkins]Jim and I have stalked the elusive bipolar Manic Depressive through the streets of Chicago. Now that he’s cornered in the new section of Lower Wacker Drive, I’ll stand back while Jim goes in for the injection[/marlin Perkins]
[Jim][struggling with bipolar]Marlin, damn you, you bluehaired insurance huckster, why can’t we use the dart gun like every other time mmmffmmeee wfffmmmmmmmmmThis guy’s gonna stranglegggrrthfff me!!![/jim]
[Marlin Perkins]Jim has an excellent point. I’ll just load up my dart gun and inject the dose(fires) Oh, no! I’ve accidently shot jim in the head![/marlin perkins]
(fade to driveway)
[quentin tarentino]Marlin, is there a sign on my house that says Dead Jim Disposal?[/quentin tarentino]
[Young Dr. Frankenstein]Kidding! I’m Kidding! Don’t you people know a joke when you hear one?Hahaha!!![/Young Dr. Frankenstein]
b.
Hope things improve by next turkey day, Chas E.
I respect your right to defend yourself if someone is trying to kill you.
Your intent to be helpful doesn’t make you so. I hope you respect my right to defend myself if someone is trying to medicate me against my will.
Not enough so to guarantee your continued survival if you try to force it on me. I know some women who feel similarly about being raped again.
It isn’t legal, and locking up someone who has never committed a felony on the grounds that their state of mind indicates that they might most certainly isn’t. Even people with a long history of violent crimes have the right not to be arrested once they have served their time, unless they actually do something once again.
If, let’s say, I commit a violent crime, and am charged with it, convicted, and sentenced, and then later released on parole, a condition of my parole could be my agreement to take Prolixin. However, I would, under those circumstances, have the right to turn down the deal and serve out my time behind bars, after which time I have the right to walk the streets of my home town unmedicated.
What the hell, I’ll wade in again…
While I think medications have their place in treating mental disorders I also firmly believe than NON-medication solutions be given equal, if not greater, weight. I find the recent trend among some to give out Prozac as if it were candy to be more than disturbing.
Moving right along – in my old neighborhood in Chicago we had a person known as “Crazy Mary”. Mary was, in fact, a classically crazy schizophrenic who would hallucinate in public on streetcorners, in restaurants, etc. especially after the local toughs mugged her and stole her medications for recreational purposes (although why anyone would think those drugs fun to take is beyond me). Given her situation, she couldn’t reliably pick the culprits out of a line-up nor would her testimony stand up in court.
Now, even though Mary would see/hear/smell/taste/touch things that weren’t there for the rest of us, and occassionally had to be removed from the center of the street to allow traffic to pass, she was, in no way, a danger to others. Disturbing, yes, but harmless. A chronic victim, in fact. She did require assistance to keep the rent paid but in fact lived in a residential area and was tolerated by the community. Yes, she was on meds but no one was forcing them down her throat - she said they helped her somewhat although she wasn’t thrilled about the side effects. If you ask me, she was a pretty lucky individual, to be able to enjoy as much freedom as she did given how severe her impairments were (and presumably still are). In no way would I ever advocate locking her up or drugging her into zombiehood. Maybe hire her a bodyguard, now THAT would be a practical gift.
On the other hand - there ARE people given to violent outbursts - both those defined as mentally ill and those regarded as sane - whose conduct truly does lead one to question how safe the public is when they’re about. If a person - sane, mentally ill, retarded, intelligent, whatever - has a habit of destroying property and/or assaulting people and these outbursts are becoming either more common or more violent, then there might be cause for restraining them based on what they might do. Even so, that’s still based on individual conduct and not a disease or disorder. And even in that circumstance I think representation and some level of due process is called for.
In sum - I think there are times when forcible restraint is justifiable. But not as a knee-jerk reaction. Only as a last resort and with much consideration and contemplation of the alternatives.
DO NOT COMPARE MEDICAL TREATMENT TO RAPE! You are lucky you live here, instead of in, say, the old USSR, where you could be confined to a urine-soaked hellhole and beated by guards medicine can’t help.
I do not respect your right to remain a danger to society. I do not respect your right to refuse court-ordered treatment for a disorder you have proven you have by, say, past violent actions.
That’s not self-defense, that’s homicide. Theraputic dosages of medicine will not kill you, no matter how groggy they make you feel.
I agree. I’m only advocating the pump as an alternative to prison for someone convicted of a crime.
No. Wrong. Goddamned fucking wrong. If you are violent when you are not on Prolixin, you have no right not to take it. If you refuse to take it, you have no right to be a danger on the streets of any town.
Take it or face prison for lifetime. Take it or face execution. We will not let you remain dangerous.
I’m not about to back down on the self-defense argument. I’m perfectly happy to advocate execution, if execution is what it takes. It does not have to be that way. Drugs work. Treatment is a humane alternative to prison or execution. The pump is a convenient, humane treatment. You have a right not to like it. You have no right to be dangerous.
Derleth, who is in a dangerous frame of mind:
If you were a doctor and defined the insertion of your dick into your patient’s orifice against your patient’s will, are we to suppose it would then constitute “medical treatment”?
Members of the board, I put it to you that Derleth, via his attitudes and in light of his statements here, is a danger to society.
The alleged disorder justifies forced drugging on the grounds that future violence is considered a possibility, and the correctness of the diagnosis is assumed on the basis of a history of violence. Notice that the act of forcibly drugging a citizen against his will is somehow not construed as violence, but defending one’s self against such an assault is?
I ask that you give due consideration to the following speculation: Derleth has decided that persons such as myself should be incapacitated through the use of drugs, and will excuse any violence as justifiable means if it works toward those ends, while defining any resistance to that violence as a “symptom” that further justifies the success of his endeavor.
Here again you will note further insistence on his part that the forced drugging which he has defined as “therapeutic” would not constitute an assault, therefore making it okay for him to proceed while making it a criminal act for me to defend myself against such such an assault.
Surely you will all agree that if you assault people, they have the right to defend their person with reasonable force. I may not have the legal right to kill Derleth if I can prevent him from forcibly drugging me through simply (let’s say) taking the hypodermic out of his hands, but if there is no realistic course by which I may prevent him from drugging me without using deadly force, and deadly force is available, that is indeed self-defense.
The fact that he does not understand this, or chooses to proceed as if he did not – either way, not accepting it as a valid principle of individual self-determination in our society – indicates to me that he could act on these delusions of therapeutic grandeur at any time, and as such constitutes a danger to others.
AHunter3, could you sum up your point of view for me, please? I’m having some trouble understanding exactly what your stance is on this issue. I agree that no-one should be forced to take medication. But what should happen if a mentally ill person openly threatens another person’s life? If, for example, this person tells his or her psychiatrist that he or she is plotting to kill a specific person?
Same thing that should happen if a non-mentally ill person makes the same threat, of course.
In my last reply to Derleth, I wrote:
That should, of course, read:
If you were a doctor and defined the insertion of your dick into your patient’s orifice against your patient’s will as therapeutic, are we to suppose it would then constitute “medical treatment”?
Really? But why? Someone with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia could be suffering an episode of the illness in which he has lost insight and is not fully aware of his actions. For example, he might wrongly believe that his own life is endangered by this other person. Do you really think he should be treated the same way as a person of sound mental health who makes the same threat?
Of course! Do you think we are any more likely to be violent than anyone else who makes violent threats? People of “sound mind” commit violent acts all the time (a great many of them against us, those bearing a diagnosis of “mental illness”).
How can you possibly defend holding us to a different behavioral standard under the law?
ONCE AGAIN, may I direct everybody’s attention the existence of the competency hearing. Competency hearings are society’s way of considering the possibility that a given person is not able to make their own decisions. When you lose them, you get a guardian, and you cease to be a legal adult for all practical purposes. Competency hearings are not concerned with folks’ biochemistry, they are concerned with a person’s ability to make an informed choice. The individual involved is entitled to due process, and is assumed competent until incompetence is demonstrated in a court of law. If you believe an allegedly “mentally ill” person should not be making his or her own decisions, then, goddammit, have a competency hearing!
Aside from that, you will kindly grant us the same civil rights as any other adult, regardless of professional medical opinions about the healthiness of our thoughts and feelings, which should not be allowed to substitute for due process of law.