MuffyTheVampyreLayer
08-07-2002, 10:20 PM
Ok, so I've been reading up on Law in the area of psychiatry a bit lately, and I've started to notice a disturbing trend in some of the cases.
s 2 of The Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 requires that for a person to have a 'mental disorder' for the purposes of being treated against their will, that they must suffer from delusions, or disorders of mood or perception or volition or cognition- To such a degree that it -
1. Poses a serious danger to the health or safety of that person or others OR
2. Seriously diminishes the capacity of that person to take care of himself or herself
(Paraphrased, but not in any significant manner)
Ok... apart from the obvious issues of defining what a disorder of mood, perception, cognition or volition is, it seems fairly ok. What jerks my chain is how this has been applied to get people committed or under community treatment orders (where they keep you in a half way house if needed and force you to take medication).
Several of the cases I have looked at have involved people with supposed disordcers - the basis of their diagnoses has stemmed from the fact that they had non-conventional spiritual beliefs - eg, one thought he could heal others through using chakra crystals, and another claimed to be a witch who could get impressions from objects and had 'psychic abilites'.
While this might, in some peoples opinion, constitute a disorder of the mind (although not in my thinking), you will notice from the paraphrased statute above that only there is two limbs to be satisfied, firstly that they have a disorder of the mind, and secondly that they are a harm to themself or others, or incapable of looking after themselves.
The evidence I have seen that these people met this second limb is virtually non existent. The extent of harm they were causing themselves was minimal, by this I mean they indulged in a little bit of pot smoking, didn't keep a particularly sanitary household (unwashed dishes, dirty floors). The extent of harm they posed others was, in the worse case, persistent phonecalls and minor harassment. Also, you will notice that the disorder of the mind has to be the cause of their self/other harm. I don't think we can really suggest that unconventional spiritual beliefs cause the inability to look after yourself, or the desire to harm others.
All of the cases I looked at were successful in getting the people detained in a psychiatric facility for an indeterminate length of time. I think this was unjustifiable, and entirely too harsh for people whose greatest symptoms of being nutty was the fact they had unconventional spiritual beliefs.
These beliefs they held were the primary focus of the decisions. Belief in witchcraft and the healing power of crystals was given as evidence to show a disorder of the mind - can we really support this line of thinking?
Hypothetically, if a devout christian was to exhibit a dirty lifestyle and annoy a couple of people with persistent phone calls, then they too would warrant detention - However, christians supposedly conform to a socially acceptable standard of behaviour and belief and thus we can not call their behaviour abnormal. However - On one hand you have a couple of hippies who believe in the power of rocks and trees, and on the other we have people who believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator of everything. Which is more insane?
I don't think either is, its just a way of thinking. But it seems that it is detrimental to your autonomy to have beliefs the rest of society isnt willing to adopt. Thats just fucked up IMO.
Comments?
s 2 of The Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 requires that for a person to have a 'mental disorder' for the purposes of being treated against their will, that they must suffer from delusions, or disorders of mood or perception or volition or cognition- To such a degree that it -
1. Poses a serious danger to the health or safety of that person or others OR
2. Seriously diminishes the capacity of that person to take care of himself or herself
(Paraphrased, but not in any significant manner)
Ok... apart from the obvious issues of defining what a disorder of mood, perception, cognition or volition is, it seems fairly ok. What jerks my chain is how this has been applied to get people committed or under community treatment orders (where they keep you in a half way house if needed and force you to take medication).
Several of the cases I have looked at have involved people with supposed disordcers - the basis of their diagnoses has stemmed from the fact that they had non-conventional spiritual beliefs - eg, one thought he could heal others through using chakra crystals, and another claimed to be a witch who could get impressions from objects and had 'psychic abilites'.
While this might, in some peoples opinion, constitute a disorder of the mind (although not in my thinking), you will notice from the paraphrased statute above that only there is two limbs to be satisfied, firstly that they have a disorder of the mind, and secondly that they are a harm to themself or others, or incapable of looking after themselves.
The evidence I have seen that these people met this second limb is virtually non existent. The extent of harm they were causing themselves was minimal, by this I mean they indulged in a little bit of pot smoking, didn't keep a particularly sanitary household (unwashed dishes, dirty floors). The extent of harm they posed others was, in the worse case, persistent phonecalls and minor harassment. Also, you will notice that the disorder of the mind has to be the cause of their self/other harm. I don't think we can really suggest that unconventional spiritual beliefs cause the inability to look after yourself, or the desire to harm others.
All of the cases I looked at were successful in getting the people detained in a psychiatric facility for an indeterminate length of time. I think this was unjustifiable, and entirely too harsh for people whose greatest symptoms of being nutty was the fact they had unconventional spiritual beliefs.
These beliefs they held were the primary focus of the decisions. Belief in witchcraft and the healing power of crystals was given as evidence to show a disorder of the mind - can we really support this line of thinking?
Hypothetically, if a devout christian was to exhibit a dirty lifestyle and annoy a couple of people with persistent phone calls, then they too would warrant detention - However, christians supposedly conform to a socially acceptable standard of behaviour and belief and thus we can not call their behaviour abnormal. However - On one hand you have a couple of hippies who believe in the power of rocks and trees, and on the other we have people who believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator of everything. Which is more insane?
I don't think either is, its just a way of thinking. But it seems that it is detrimental to your autonomy to have beliefs the rest of society isnt willing to adopt. Thats just fucked up IMO.
Comments?