ON HUMANITY: Addressing The Problem Of Forced Drugging

Jack Bragen is a nutcase who writes a mental health column for The Berkeley Daily Planet. He’s on his meds, and he has no problem with that fact. I, who am not on any psychiatric drugs whatsoever, on the other hand, do have a problem with him promoting forced mental health treatment. His latest article does just that. It bears the thoroughly biased heading, ON MENTAL ILLNESS: Addressing the Problem of Non-compliance Among People with Schizophrenia.

Nobody has ever proven the existence of any “mental illness”, therefore, why force drugs on people for the sake of a theory. People are convicted of schizophrenia without a trial by a jury of their peers. Legitimate medicine doesn’t sentence people to a drug taking regimen. Real “sicknesses” are not some kind of misbehavior requiring the intervention of law enforcement. Psychiatry, blurring the distinction between law and medicine, sometimes does sentence people to take drugs, so called chemical restraints, for this alleged schizophrenia.

The first change I would suggest is to somewhat extend the criteria for a 51 or 5250. An additional criterion that can be added would be to “50” a person if unable to provide for his or her basic needs [such as going to the store and buying a loaf of bread] due to a mental illness. Such a criteria would be less offensive than the one Laura’s Law provides which says they are subject to forced treatment if refusing medication due to the lack of judgment caused by their illness [not in those exact words]. The problem I have with the Laura’s Law criteria is that the patient is presumed incompetent based on making the choice to refuse treatment. The fact that I take medication to an extent by choice and not because a law is mandating it makes a huge difference to me, to my quality of life, and to my attitude toward treatment practitioners.

His first change seems like no change. In fact I think it would be covered under ‘gravely disabled’, a part of the current law that law enforcement officers are fain to enforce. My point, you don’t make laws because you think they won’t be enforced. The change is redundant, and if it wasn’t redundant, why would authorities be any more inclined to enforce it than they are under the current law which includes something of the sort.

The second change that I would introduce is to create a 5350, which would mandate treatment for two or three months, a long enough time period for someone to get over his or her delusional system and come to the realization of needing treatment, but not such a long time that it resembles a six-month jail sentence. At the end of the 5350 time period, if someone is still unable to provide for basic needs, conservatorship could be considered. The 5350 could be used if someone has a track record of noncompliance and resultant relapse, and if currently unfit to survive in society.

3 months is the mental health equivalent of 90 days in jail. The thing is, after doing your 90 days, if we’re talking jail, you’re home free. The state isn’t likely to confiscate your property, nor is the state likely to appoint a warder to keep you under perpetual house arrest. The problem with sentencing people for non-compliance is that if you suspect further non-compliance in the future, technically, you could hold a person for life. All you’d have to do, not having trials in such instances, is to keep recommitting them to successive sentences once their initial sentence had been served. This “conservatorship”, too; what is that, if a man or woman have done their time, except adding insult to injury!?

When making the change in the law that I propose, there ought to be additional requirements that mental health treatment facilities provide humane treatment and quality of care. If we are to be forced into treatment by a governmental mandate, it becomes the responsibility of that government to make that treatment humane, free of malpractice, and respectful of basic human dignity.

Geez, Mr Bragen! Where have you been the last few years? It’s not like there aren’t requirements of the sort you would be asking for. It’s just…who’s going to enforce them? Why mental health authorities, of course. If records show enough unexplained cadavers turning up here and there, well, you call in the feds. The point I am trying to make is that when you make treatment free of liberty, brutality, malpractice (called something else of course), and indignity are going to be the natural consequence. We’re still waiting for our countries’ representatives to recognise those rights put forth in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights drafted by the United Nations.

I’ve got a better idea. Let’s stop treating people in crisis as if they were criminals. Let’s repeal mental health law entirely, including in this repeal 5150, 5250, Laura’s Law, and what have you. Let’s close those decaying relics of moral management and the old asylum system down completely, and let’s put our money into prevention, community care, and social reintegration instead. Of course, reason is not going to prevail anytime soon. Our mad law makers, in collusion with drug companies, and the revisers of the DSM, will not rest content until they’ve gotten “help” for most of the people on this planet. Resigning ourselves to having the future hospital without walls replace the hospital with walls is not going to mean an improvement in any way shape or form.

Advertisements

14 Responses

  1. He recommends forced treatment for people who fail the loaf of bread test. Maybe the loaf test will become the method of a compulsory mass screening program.

    • How many mental patients does it take to screw in a light bulb? None, they can just have their Program of Assertive Community Treatment (PACT) team do it for them.

      I’m saying they’ve got forced treatment for people who fail the ‘loaf of bread test’ anyway, in California and throughout the USA. The California “gravely disabled” clause is just that kind of thing. If you can’t feed yourself, I don’t think the state is going to pick up the slack.

      PACT or FACT teams can be a real problem, or solution, depending on your perspective. These intensive treatment teams take their poisons directly to people if they’ve “forgotten” to pick them up. A member of a team might stand there before an open mouthed patient to make sure it goes down, and doesn’t get spit out in the can. I’ve known more than one incident where a PACT team was responsible for putting a person back in the hospital because they didn’t think he or she was taking proper care of him or herself.

      Perhaps you’ve encountered the notion of “learned helpless” at some point or another. PACT teams exist to make sure the severely labeled person has gotten this lesson down pat.

  2. You have a wording error. Its not a “problem” its a “solution”, in the title “The Problem Of Forced Drugging”
    “The Solution of Forced Drugging.” is the correct title.

    In feudal times, the Government got involved if a person was making too many people upset, or the person was not paying his taxs.

    As the mentally ill have no money, the Gov has no money to be made from Taxing the “ill” person, but money can be made from taxing the general public to pay for “helping” the mentally ill.

    George Bush and others in Gov who are invested in the highly profitable Pharma Co. http://www.americanchiropractic.net/general_%20interest/Conflict%20of%20Interest.pdf

    Make money for themselves with the “solution” of forced drugging.

    What can I use you for?

    • Good point, MarkPs2. One person’s solution is another person’s problem. I was responding to Jack Bragen’s Berkeley Daily Planet column in which he wrote of “non-compliance” with drug mistreatment as a problem. Non-compliance is a solution to a number of health complications, mental and physical, and it’s just the sort of solution I happen to advocate.

      Hopefully we’ve progressed a little ways beyond feudal relationships, but I get the drift of what you’re saying here. We have an expression for feudal-type government interventions when they take place today, and that expression is, “Absolutely medieval!”

      We’ve got a whole industry of production built around this group of un and under employed citizens. Imagine that! Amusing, perhaps, but disgusting as well. Hiring a few ‘certified peer support specialists’ doesn’t distract from the sort of vulture labor, and ultimate parasitism, that we’ve got going on here. Rather than putting people back to work, we’ve got a whole disability growth industry making its living off the psychiatric label. The troubling news, here, is that the “solution” is getting worse.

      This article you link to from back in year 2000 about how much legislators then were into the drug industry, and mentioning the Bush family, Dick Chaney, John Kerry, and Joseph Lieberman should make one wonder how much Barack O’bama is into the drug companies as well. I know he has felt it incumbent to make deals with drug companies, all in the name of political pragmatism, and this is disturbing. We are still living in this drug, drug, drug culture where the basic paradigm needs to change. Life is a wonder. Prescription drugs, just like illicit drugs, are ultimately a disappointment, to say the least.

      As to the “use” to which anyone is put, place profits over people, and this sort of thing is bound to continue. We’ve got this way of saying wealthy people, as if they’d “earned” that wealth, are worth more than poorer people, and it’s absolute nonsense. You get a lot of dead middle income to poor people out of that kind of thinking. Place people over profits, and you’re not going to be coming up with so many “solutions” that serve the more meagre wealthy population alone.

    • [For instance, I look at you and I think, “What could I use you for?”] is taken from the movie “The Departed” (2006) with Jack Nicholson saying the line.

  3. Hey, come on. That’s great. All those rich corporate folks who don’t do their own shopping will be banged up straight away.

  4. The post was about forced drugging. I’m also very drunk and think that my internet connection is a bit dicky.

    If someone comes at me with the intention to detain and then drug me, do I have a right to resist?

    When did a bunch of homo, ugly, feminazi, mean, left wing, fat, stupid, pack of cunts come up with a meaning for the word right, which is actually a very trivial and boring word.

    What a bunch of shit. I don’t have a right to resist. I have an ability to resist. There are no rights that any other person or state can confer upon me. Am I supposed to plead that some majority opinion provides me a route? Am I supposed to lick shitty hairs and to pretend to be grateful? Oh yeah… want to come back to my place?

    I have an ability to kill because I can heft a piece of wood and raise my arm.

  5. A sensible response could be :

    Is the person a cunt and could we be better able to deal, withstand or enjoy our environment if such a person ceased to exist?

  6. There are no two words about it. If the cunts pretend otherwise I’m happy to speak with them. Such cunts are Ian Hickie and Patrick (stupid cunt mick) McGorry.

    I can drink a litre of 50 proof spirit and beat Hickie in any contest of his choosing. If he wanted to play golf… ha .. I played golf at night as a child. Does he have any sensible knowledge of geometry? Does he even know that it means to measure the earth?

    Fuckin” cunts….

  7. Am I sounding like drunken imbecile? If I was drunk would I be disqualified.

    These people, YES, cunting fucking cunts, are a pack of lying fucking cunts.

    It would be for the best if old fashioned notions of respect were cuntingly fucked off.

    • I don’t know, Rod. It might help if we stopped referring to certain people as parts of the human anatomy. When we’re sober anyway…

      I’m having to deal with this mental health consumer, I hope that’s not an objectional term, who is in favor of forcing mental health treatment on people. I presume the people he wants to force this treatment upon are people other than himself. I don’t know his history. I don’t know what kind of mental health treatment he has received in the past. I do know forced mental health treatment is not a good thing, and that it runs counter to the laws of the land when those laws are based on a respect for rights and freedoms.

      Resisting law enforcement officers can sometimes get people some serious time in the clinker. I wouldn’t encourage resisting psychiatric assault. Playing along is usually the most expedient way to freedom. I don’t include murder as a right.

  8. Lol! Diplomatically put, MFV.

    It is because we have the “ability” to defend ourselves that the – insert word or words of your own choice – have legislated away our “right” to.

    My point was, Rod, that the people on the end of enforcing any such new criteria do not have even have a clue where the corner shop is, but they would not be considered candidates for enforced mental health treatment because of it. The proposed rule, therefore, is for the poor. Anyone who cannot afford to have their shopping done for them or delivered.

    MFV, the “laws of the land” you describe only favour those in power. Your constitutional rights evaporate as soon as you are on the wrong side of a locked door. The US does not recognise any human rights protection for a reason.

    The incarceration process is like quicksand. When you are most likely to resist due to basic survival instincts beyond your control, it is illegal to do so. You are supposed to withstand harassment and violence without moving a muscle. I understand that “playing along” might be the fastest way to freedom but what of those who are not psychologically in a position to do so? There go the mentally ill and the terrorised swelling the ranks of the new slave labour. It is wrong that people are expected to “play along” without exception with these rules that enable law enforcement officers to abuse detainees. There is something wrong in a supposedly developed society when people are expected to be better behaved and more rational than their captors in order to evade extended incarceration.

  9. Sober Sir! I’ll hereforth endeavour to contribute against the efforts of these CF’s without necessarily making use of the the facilities, enhancements and powers that ethanol and marijuana usage might appear to make available.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: