Forced use of psychiatric drugging.

This is a two part poll

First part ( pick one of the first 3 choices)asks Do you agree with the forced drugging of people labled with a mental illness?


Second Part ( pick one of the Questions 4 through 10 ) it asks..
What is your relationship to mentally ill people?



Here is my personal take on this subject..to get the debate going.

I am a consumer advocate I am mentally ill and I have freinds and family who have mental illnes.
To me,I see the forced drugging issue as an issue of human rights. Forced drugging is the violation of autonomy and respect of bodily intgerity. A bad thing for a free society.
I support the rights of mentally ill people to refuse forced drugging for the same reason I support pro choice positions. This is about a human beings right to autonomy , that"quaint" notion a persons body and will is "sacred". That a person has the absolute right over what they do with thier own body and they own the conesquences of thier own choices.

To me forced drugging is alot like forced birth.People who seek to control aborttion seek to control how others use thier own sexuality. This is about dominating others bodies to impose your idealogy upon them for religious reasons the other person being forced to give birth may not agree with or care about.

Every person has to have a right to say NO,to another's persuation,cocercion or force.This is what freedom is.
Forcing a psychiatric drug into another person's body who is unwilling to take it is about social domination and control masked as"care"..Its not just about help really.Help requires TRUST and negotiation between caretaker and patient.Frustrated negotiators overriding a persons autonomy and free will whom is not harming others is not consistient with constitutional principles.It is authoritarian tyranny. Forcing a person against thier will to alter thier own mental state is violation of trust.It is about control.


Family members of mentally ill people just want to save thier family members from suffering.I can see thier reasoning.I dissagree with thier methods.


"The professionals are always sitting around saying, 'Now how can we motivate Ms. Client to do XYZ?' The simple answer is to ask Ms. Client if she wants to do XYZ. If she says 'No, I don't want to do that,' then you don't have to worry about motivating her."
-- Peg Englebert


"One of the great delusions of our time is that a service system can produce care. All kinds of systems steal this human word. In doing that, they put the mask of love on the face of control."
-- John McKnight

"The great leader who is going to save is is not there.
We have to take the power and the responsibility to solve our own problems. We may not have created them, but it is up to us to solve them all."
Justin Dart

"The long-standing rule in America is that if you are not like everybody else, then you ought to disappear. Many people with disabilities are frightened of being seen. We want to be the invisible force. Invisible."
-- Johnny Long

"We will no longer attempt to prove how reasonable we can be. We will go before them, face to face, to fight for our freedom.

"We will not be held hostage to their administrative efficiency. We will not keep to our place. We will never again be put away.
We are freedom fighters now.
And this is war."
-- Mouth Magazine

A few people will hurt themselves or others without medication. Of course, meds should not be given without good reason, etc., etc. And any regimen should consider many factors--such as social support.

For some, the only alternative to forced meds would be institutionalization.

This talk about forced drugging is concerning a Fed program called New Freedom Initiative and it involves a mental evaluation of all school aged children for mental health and the forced medication of them for any "problems" detected. Of course, you'll still have to pay for it out of your pocket.

It also covers adults too, such as teachers and the like and, as with DRUG TESTING, although it starts out as "that sounds reasonable" it will soon progress to the point that it covers all citizens and taking of your medication is enforceable. I don't think we want to be giving anyone this kind of control over our lives.

I remember we used to make fun of the USSR for having to forcibly drug their citizens to get them to love the government. Is Liberalism a mental disease? We know what Coulter, Hannity and others think.

although the initial post does not refer to it, we know that the government is planning even greater invasion of privacy and control of the population. we must be on guard against that.

It just went on & on about "forced" drugging.

So now it back door "forced drugging" of people who really do need to take medication.

I remember once upon a time, people thought it might be a reasonable idea to randomly test airline pilots and train engineers for drugs, since their jobs have so many lives on the line.

These days you can't get a job flipping burgers without an acceptable urine sample. I raised the same red flags over drug testing and I think this kind of government controlling every aspect of your life is not what the founding fathers had in mind and it's certainly not the way I want to live my life, personally.

i work with "mentally ill" patients in an acute inpatient unit. at the same time i have an "anti-psychiatry" bias, that is, i think the science of psychiatry is poor, and i think issues of cultural control are always in the picture (and don't forget about pharma-corp profits).

i know there are better ways of handling people who are "out of control" than with a knee-jerk resort to medications. but in my experience some people need, at the very least, to be sedated, and quickly, to prevent them harming other patients or staff.

i also think state laws must be liberalized to give greater weight to patients' rights.

we also need to think about the cost of alternative measures, which are almost always more labor intensive--as if health care isn't expensive enough already.

frankly, i think it must be admitted there is no easy solution, but i am open to suggestion.

I have a theory as a non expert in Psychology.

I am not a psychologist or doctor, but I agree that a patient should be drugged if he is out of control -- but just on a temporary basis (under 24 hours) and/or until the patient is moved to an environment were he cannot do harm to others.

As a pacifist -- I study aggression in society, and most violent people are begging for direction, they want to be directed -- and told how to act (because they know that their own emotions are out of control), so that would I guess fall under traditional psychotherapy --without medication -- to in the long run prevent violence.

Take Dick Cheney, as an example of being a typical -- out of control violent person, (a person can be educated -- and be behind a desk -- and still be violent).

Cheney wants to be in an environment; in which secret rules -- dictate how he behaves in society, because in an open society and government he would be powerless -- because the rule of law and common sense would dictate, how he behaves, and would prevent him from starting wars, etc.

First you forcibly drug the mentally ill. Then you forcibly drug all kids with ADD. Then you forcibly drug all women with post partum depression. Then you forcibly drug all men going through a mid-life crisis. Where does it end?

For the record, I have a sister who is severely schitzophrenic and at times refused to take her medication. Would it have been easier on us if someone had forced her to take her meds? Yes. Would it have been fair to her, would it have let her keep her dignity as a human being? No.

They should have a choice: 1. Take your meds as prescribed and live in the community or 2. Live in the hospital until you are willing to take your meds.

People with mental health issues that aren't violent and aren't suicidal or sel-injuring shouldn't have anyone forcing medicine on them. They may need help in other ways-I've worked with people suffering from major depression and most of the ones I've dealt with had other problems associated with their illness-dirty, filthy houses; health issues because they haven't been taking care of themselves; sores and scabs from living in dirty conditions; problems with taking care of their kids or conflicts with other family members; other untreated medical problems, etc. If a person can't function without meds, he or she really should take the meds.

I hope someday they will find treatments for mental illness that don't have so many negative side-effects. There are some new medications that are better than the old ones (like Thorazine or high doses of Haldol), but there are still side effects. Someday, they will find out the cause of other conditions, like schizophrenia, the way they did with bi-polar disorder, and find the proper treatment to address it instead of controlling the symptoms.

it, like every other thing in the world, is nuetral. It is how it is used that matters.

The drugging of America is a huge threat, especially of it's children. The creation of more pseudo-labels such as ADD or ADHD can mimic over 100 different diagnosis such as malnutrition and diet issues as well as being symptomatic of an out of control family system. This is wrong and is guided by the greed of pharmaceutical giants and the social desire of creating a dependent and malleable flock. This should be fought tooth and nail.

That said there are no easy answers and no perfect scenarios to this issue. I think forced drugging of dangerous people not unrealistic. This is for the benefit of the whole. After working in the counseling field for close to twenty years, it is apparent that some people NEED medication if they are going to be able to function in society.

We are talking about a level of functionality. If people are a danger to themselves or others, is where I draw the line. You subscribe a level of choice to people who, often times, are not able to make a rational decision. This isn't about blame this is about accountability. If they are going to be in the world instead of jailed or institutionalized, then they need to be responsible, knowing what they may be capable of if they are not medicated.

We can still be compassionate but not naive.