Do you think that forced psychiatric commitment should be banned?

[Anonymous]

And if we won't how can we prevent wrongful commitments? I was wrongfully committed as a result of a misdiagnosis and was detained for twice as long as usual because they couldn't find what was wrong with me (turns out: nothing) so if you're going to argue that the practice shouldn't be banned how else can we stop what happened to me from happening to others?

Yes

No

[kaylaS91]

No, I don't think forced psychiatric commitment should be banned. I doubt many people who are legitimately mentally ill would be peach keen about the idea of being 'forced' into a psychiatric commitment if we insisted on running it by each and every single one of them, which would potentially put the public as well as the individuals in danger as a result.

I'm sorry about your misdiagnosis but did you ever think about taking it up with hte clinician, or maybe getting a second opinion?

[I-Am-Bored]

I agree, I was misdiagnosed for psychosis at 14, turns out I just had Asperger's and was really anxious in stressful and social situations, which wasn't exactly ideal for being locked up in a hospital for months before they could figure out what was wrong with me

[Asker]

The same thing happened to me.

[bcromartie]

The question lies in margin of error. If you were just unlucky, no, but if it's a common error the practice definitely has to be reevaluated.

[kittykatg]

As someone who worked in a counseling center and has been through treatments myself, we have to have those things in place. If someone is a threat to themselves or others we need to be able to get them treated. Forcing someone to be committed is a difficult process and almost always it is recommended to ask them to go themselves due to your concerns. I'm sorry that you were wrongfully diagnosed but normally the opposite is true. Normally people that need to be committed are not and end up severely hurting themselves or others.

[Asker]

Well, if people want to hurt themselves that's their business. But here's the number one problem: people say that they need to be detained because they might hurt themselves. LOL ANYONE "might" do ANYTHING. That's why we incarcerate people for what they actually did, not because of what they "might" do.

[kittykatg]

When we say might in the counseling world it means that there's a 99% chance and that they need treatment. We don't commit people for fun; we do it to save lives and it sucks for us when we have to do it. This isn't something that we take lightly and usually are putting our lives on the line to help them when they are that far gone.
Again I'm sorry that happened to you but that's a very rare and unusual case.

[Asker]

"This isn't something that we take lightly"
From experience, I know that it is something that is taken all too lightly and how are you putting your lives on the line?

[kittykatg]

I've had people come at me while at work there was an occasion with weapons as well. Again your experience isn't a common one. Normally it's the exact opposite and the people who need help don't receive it and end up hurting themselves or others. Just because you were the exception and had a bad experience doesn't mean that there aren't others who desperately need this service. Unless you've been on both sides you can't honestly say that we don't do this out of the desire to help people.

[Asker]

"Unless you've been on both sides you can't honestly say that we don't do this out of the desire to help people." Why don't you just be honest and say that you do it out of a desire to bill people/insurance companies without consent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QmzCVHzMsY Honestly, don't you think it would be best for the billions of dollars spent on involuntary commitment would be better used on people who actually want help. Lastly I don't think I need to explain to you how dangerous the notion of locking someone up for what they might do is and where that line of reasoning leads to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mr97qyKA2s

[kittykatg]

You obviously have no idea how it works and working full time I still made way under the property line and spent hours of unpaid overtime helping people. I also did a ton of work without charging the insurance company or the patient. You have no idea what we go through and how had we try to help people.
Also we aren't just randomly locking them up and throwing away the key. If they are a threat to themselves or others we are giving them treatment and releasing them as soon as it would be healthy for them. Just letting people go or not admitting them at all would be like if someone was forcibly taken in for a gun shot wound but they didn't want to then the hospital didn't treat or help them even though they're bleeding out because they "don't want treatment."

[kittykatg]

Poverty line*

[Asker]

"Just letting people go or not admitting them at all would be like if someone was forcibly taken in for a gun shot wound but they didn't want to then the hospital didn't treat or help them even though they're bleeding out because they "don't want treatment."
Even people with diseases that are fatal if untreated can still refuse treatment without being coerced.
2. "You obviously have no idea how it works and working full time I still made way under the property line and spent hours of unpaid overtime helping people. I also did a ton of work without charging the insurance company or the patient. You have no idea what we go through and how had we try to help people." Then why are people charged thousands of dollars for treatment that they never wanted in the first place?

[Asker]

Also, did you ever have patients who stopped seeing you after you had them committed?

[Asker]

And while I never had suicidal thoughts or issues with self harm before what happened, afterward, I was plagued by them nonstop.

[kittykatg]

Again I'm sorry your situation happened to you but that isn't how things usually happen. You can't base your single bad experience as if it is everyone's and deny these people help. Also many times there are options that don't involve the client having to pay out of pocket, like using their insurance or getting them signed up for Medicaid or other programs.
Yes they can refuse treatment if they are of a sound mind and not a threat to themselves or others. If they do not have the capacity to make that decision someone else has to for them, that's why if someone's not responding they will preform life saving treatments instead of just standing around while the person bleeds out and say well he hasn't said he wants treatment so we won't give it to him.
No my patients continued to see me and there therapist even if their therapist had made the decision to commit them. That's because we discussed it with them ahead of taking them.

[kittykatg]

Then after their treatment plan was finished there have other sessions with them to discuss our reasoning, how they felt about it, and how to continue to improve. Yes sometimes they did take it as a personal attack and not want to see us afterwards. We never forced them to. Typically though they realized that we were doing our best to help and that they needed more support than what we could provide them.

[Asker]

Well, they don't do a psych evaluation on someone who refuses treatment for an otherwise fatal disease. It might be different for me because my parents committed me as an adolescent so I'm not 100% sure how it works if you're over 18.

[kittykatg]

See if your under 18 it's completely up to your parents unfortunately and you don't get a say in any medical procedures. That's why there are many kids with fatal diseases that die because their parents refused to give them treatment for whatever reason despite the kid wanting the treatment.
Also depending on the individual they will do a psychological evaluation to determine competency.

[Asker]

Well, to what extent do parents have control? Mine said they would only let me out if I was to be more obedient to them. And as for depending on the individual, does that mean that some will be locked up without an exam?

[kittykatg]

The depends on the individual was with regards to individuals refusing treatment for things like cancer or HIV or other fatal illnesses. If the individual might not be competent to decide for themselves, an evaluation will be done. No one is admitted into a mental health facility without an evaluation first. We can't provide treatment if we don't know what we are trying to treat.
Also if you're under 18 parents have 100% control until it can be determined by the psychiatrist that there is nothing wrong or that treatment has been completed. Or the parents can pull the child out if they wish. With individuals under 18 though they not only preform the evaluation on the child but are also required to ask the guardian specific questions to help determine what is going on with the child.

[kittykatg]

It sounds like you had shit parents that lied during their portion of the evaluation to keep you in treatment. If the psychiatrist didn't have your parents telling them lies you probably would have been diagnosed correctly and released sooner, that is if they required you to stay at all.

[Asker]

But regarding refusing treatment, if someone refuses treatment for a disease that would otherwise be fatal, how are they not a threat to themselves if they're taking a course of action that will lead to their death?

[kittykatg]

That's different though. When I say being a threat to themselves or others in a mental health capacity it means that they are basically planning on leaving your office and killing themselves or someone else. Refusing treatment isn't directly killing themselves, it's refusing to possibly save their own life. Also with fatal diseases, usually treatments don't work or only prolong the suffering so it is reasonable to refuse. Being a suicidal or homicidal threat is different because it is a direct action that can be easily avoided and prevented by seeking psychiatric treatment that will save their life or someone else's.

[Asker]

" Also with fatal diseases, usually treatments don't work or only prolong the suffering so it is reasonable to refuse" That's not entirely true. Many bacterial infections have near 100% mortality rates if untreated and nearly 100% survival rates if treated. And even if they're not directly killing themselves they're still choosing to end their life for a condition that could be easily treated. If they're at risk of killing others than you might have a point but if it's they're life that's their choice. But tell me, do you think that if someone's wants to end their life that automatically makes them "mentally ill"?

[Asker]

Do you think a mentally sound person would be willing to end their life?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjPkBKZXy74

[Asker]

In the analogy with the infectious disease, just picture the suicide as the cause of death in someone with a mental illness just like the paralysis brought on by the tetanus toxin is the cause of death in someone who was infected by lockjaw.

[Asker]

Plus, do you not think people might be more open about suicidal thoughts if there was no fear of being committed?

[kittykatg]

Originally I wasn't going to respond because you have your mind made up and don't care what I say.
If someone is already seeing a therapist, they're already open about their suicidal thoughts and it's why they went in the first place. The only time that they would be asked to be committed for them would be if they said something along the lines of how they were going to attempt suicide after leaving the office. We have to take into account how suicidal they are, their level of intent, and their ability to do so. If all those things are high as in they said tonight I'm going home and blowing my brains out and you know they own a gun and refuse to seek more serious help than out patient treatment, is the only time that they could be forcibly committed.

[Asker]

Well, first off I haven't made up my mind all the way because you may have a point when a person is a threat to OTHERS. A common (but wrong) statement made is that psychiatry is the only field of medicine that has patients forcibly detained. However this isn't true; in the field of epidemiology, people with deadly contagious diseases can be quarantined (forcibly detained) for the sake of public safety. They can refuse treatment but they can't leave until the disease is cured or they die. So if someone shows clear evidence of that person being a threat to others then you can make a case. As for suicide, well you never answered my question: do you think that if someone wants to end their life they're automatically out of their mind?

[Asker]

But my experience isn't exactly unique, look at the comments on this post:
www.speakingofsuicide.com/.../

[kittykatg]

That site only went to further strengthen my argument.
I have suicidal thoughts myself as I struggle with depression and anxiety. My brother was self admitted to a hospital for similar mental health problems as me. No we aren't "insane", "crazy", or "out of our minds". However, those thoughts are unhealthy and indicators of a disorder which is why we, and many other people, seek treatment.

[Asker]

Well, if you look at the comments section, the people who have been through that contradicted what she was saying. One woman even wanted to try to get hold of cyanide tablets in case someone tried to commit her again. I was hesitant to see anyone about my thoughts for 9 years but I recently started seeing a psychiatrist but to prevent myself from getting locked up again I bought a squirt gun and spray painted it black.

[kittykatg]

Those instances where the person doesn't see it as helpful are rare. They are few and far between. You don't care about the actual facts though, all you're looking for are things that agree with your own views that you decided long ago. FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME WE DONT GO LOOK FOR PEOPLE TO "LOCK UP" as you put it. We save that as a last resort. I'm sorry that your parents were assholes, committed you, and lied to your therapist but it wasn't the therapist's fault. They were working with the information given to them.
You do realize that threatening your therapist is a sure way to get lock up if your not killed by police because they think you have an actual gun right?

[Asker]

"You do realize that threatening your therapist is a sure way to get lock up if your not killed by police because they think you have an actual gun right?"
The purpose of the gun isn't to threaten my psychiatrist, the purpose is to pull it on the police when they get there should my psychiatrist attempt to commit me making them respond with lethal force (google: suicide by police).

[kittykatg]

I know what suicide by cop is. And again, we don't just lock people up. As an adult they have to see you as being an immediate threat to yourself/others, they have to discuss committing you with you, once you get there another therapist who doesn't know you has to preform an evaluation as well. It's a difficult process and something we don't like to do unless it's 120% necessary.
You obviously have a chip on your shoulder and want to blame someone. You don't want to blame your parents, so your making inaccurate accusations and trying to convince people that need help that they shouldn't seak counseling. Mental health care workers don't make shit from insurance companies or from their parents, most of their money actually goes to pay insurance companies to let people go see them as part of their healthcare plan and other costs of running a healthcare office. Of that $100 an hour we might see $10. We only care about helping people, we accept that we'll be poor forever.

[Asker]

"As an adult they have to see you as being an immediate threat to yourself/others" Again, we HAVE to make a distinction between being a threat to oneself and others and what that entails. If someone has a deadly transmissible pathogen like Ebola, they can be forcibly quarantined because of the risk of the disease spreading to others. However if it is a non-transmissible pathogen like tetanus they can refuse treatment even though tetanus in the early stages is both easily treatable and has a near 100% mortality rate if untreated. Maybe if the person was delusional you could make an argument to commit them but how could you if they were still competent to make choices?

[Asker]

And FYI I do blame my parents and have disowned them.

[Asker]

Oh and yes, the people in the office have decided to undergo therapy but there are many more who would not because they're afraid that they will be detained.

[Anonymous]

I do not think that the answer can be a simple yes or simple no. Nowadays way too many things consider "not normal" and way too many people diagnosed with all sorts of "conditions". On the other side there are people who have serious mental problems and can be a danger to others and themselves. In an ideal world in my opinion the society would not attribute an illness to everything different and would recognize the "not normal" from the harmless different. And would admit only the really serious cases and try to help them instead of just using drugs to keep them under control and almost vegetate them

[samhradh_leannan]

If the person is a danger to themselves or others, then something has to be done about that. We should strive to avoid misdiagnosis and to treat people as fairly as possible, but there are cases where people simply can't make that choice on their own.

[Asker]

Anyone is a potential danger to others, you can't predict the future. That's why people are convicted for crimes that they committed, not ones that they might commit. And that logic you follow can lead to serious problems (take Japanese American interment in WW2)

[samhradh_leannan]

For god's sake. Of course we can't predict the future. But someone who has been known to display violent or dangerous behavior due to a mental disorder, or has clear and obvious symptoms of having a condition that frequently leads to those types of behaviors, needs to be treated. I'm not going to wait to do anything until they've already begun shooting innocent people. Obviously if there is no solid reason to believe that anything like this could happen, they should not be committed.

[Asker]

If someone's exhibiting violent behaviors then they don't belong in a hospital they should go to jail for aggravated assault.

[samhradh_leannan]

If they are simply a criminal who is choosing to be violent, then yes, absolutely. But if they are mentally unstable and that's what is leading them to display violent behaviors, then treatment is most likely a better option- not just for them, but for the rest of society as well.

[Asker]

But we don't just lock people in psych wards for committing violent acts, we do even when they say they want to end their OWN life.

[Asker]

Also, if you're drunk you have less self control than most people who are mentally ill but you couldn't use that as an excuse for running someone over.

[samhradh_leannan]

The ethics of suicide are a whole other can of worms.

[samhradh_leannan]

And that statement depends WILDLY on the specifics of the mental disorder.

[Asker]

The ethics of suicide are in the same can of worms because people are committed for suicidal idealation.

[samhradh_leannan]

But they're also committed for hurting others.

[Asker]

Again, if they're hurting others then they don't belong in a hospital they should be held accountable for their actions and you said in your opinion If the person is a danger to THEMSELVES or others. If they're a danger to themselves or at risk of ending their own life it's their life and not ours.

[samhradh_leannan]

I disagree. People with mental health conditions can't necessarily be held responsible for their actions in the same way that someone without a condition can be, and prison is not the most beneficial, productive, or even safe place to put them.

[samhradh_leannan]

Depending on the specific condition, obviously.

[Kris85]

This is the third question this week I have seen on this from you. I already stated my opinion on the first one. Someone doesn't get wrongly committed. There's always reason why someone does whether it turns out to be something or nothing. There was obviously reasons in your case for having to be put into psychiatric care for the time being.

[Asker]

No there wasn't it was a misdiagnosis and haven spoken with my psychiatrist he said it was something that shouldn't have happened.

[Asker]

*given what information was on hand at the time.

[Asker]

And there are even lawsuits for wrongful commitment.

[LadyMcNovel]

Depends on the problem. You might could sue for unnecessary detainment though. If you weren't diagnosed, it was a waste of money and time. Like, why? Haha. Good luck!

[1152pm]

You might have been the exception but there are lots of people who need it.

[thewanderingme]

no, a lot more people should be committed

[Asker]

Then we'll have way more wrongful commitments.

[thewanderingme]

they let you go once they realized you didn't need to be there. too many dangerous but jobs are roaming the street.

[Asker]

After they let me go they still made me go to outpatient.

[thewanderingme]

you clearly need it.

[Asker]

No I didn't they couldn't even give me a proper diagnosis so no I didn't.

[aliceinwonderland69]

I am getting bored of these questions.

[Asker]

Then don't post an opinion on them ;)

[snowangle]

^ I agree with her

[Asker]

@snowangle Then read my response to her.

[AzureGirl]

Nope. Better safe than sorry.

[Asker]

Medicine doesn't work that way and cures can be worse than the illness.

[Asker]

You would never dream of saying "better safe than sorry" and give someone chemo based on the suspicion that they have cancer.

[AzureGirl]

That's why people test before treating.

[Asker]

But we commit people before knowing what condition that they have (I know from first hand experience)

[AzureGirl]

And if those are committed then there's a reason they were committed.

[Asker]

Yeah, there is a reason: bill people without consent.

[Asker]

I even spoke with my current psychiatrist and he said given the info they had it was an inappropriate course of action.

[AzureGirl]

So if someone who attempts to kill themselves says they're absolutely fine then despite the obvious suicidal tendencies they should be able to just be let alone? I think not.

[Asker]

If someone wants to die who are we to force them to live?

[AzureGirl]

If someone is suicidal then they should be helped.

[Asker]

If someone has a disease that is fatal if untreated they can still refuse treatment.

[idiotmanchild]

It's different because psychiatric diseases can affect the safety of others while physical ones don't. Even for the few that do affect others, people that have the disease are forcefully kept away from others...

[performerwannabe]

Depends on the situation.

[jacquesvol]

Certainly not banned.

[apple24]

u shouldn't banned it.

[Becky01]

no in some cases it is necessary

[Anonymous]

How many times are you going to ask this question?