Should mentally ill patients have the right to refuse treatments and the right to die that physically ill patients have?

[Anonymous]

If not why not,
that's just so hypocritical.

yes

no

[ksoma]

If you think it is hypocritical, you've kinda proven just how ignorant you are as to why it is allowed for the physically ill.

A physically ill person, in order to refuse treatment at the cost of their life, must prove they understand their course of action, and that they are of sound mind to make such a decision.

What is more, you said "refuse treatment," and not "be euthanized."
A cancer patient who refuses treatment will die. A patient with depression will not, unless he commits suicide, which is not a natural endpoint of his disease, but rather a conscious act, brought about by a broken state of mind.
There is no medical condition where a lack of treatment will lead to death, unless that mental condition is brought about by a physical ailment (like meningitis). And in those cases, if it can be argued that a person's mental capacity has been detrimentally influenced, they can not refuse treatment, because they are not of sound mind to do so.
By the very nature of their condition, a mentally ill person can not make that same choice BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT OF SOUND MIND TO MAKE THAT DECISION!

[Asker]

A CHOICE is a CHOICE no matter what mental condition someone is in rendering that argument moot. And a lack of treatment for a mental condition can lead to death and suicide is just the end result as dying from porforations in your lungs is the end result of TB.

[ksoma]

So if I kidnap someone, get them absolutely destroyed on mind altering drugs, and gave them a gun and they killed themselves, that would be a suicide, and not an ac of murder on my part?

No. If you do not have the ability to make sane decisions, you are not held accountable for what you did, but neither is your decision one that should be respected. The hypothetical man had his state of mind altered to the point where he was not thinking clearly, and acted on impulse. If a person is not in a state of mind to think clearly, they can not be held liable for their actions, unless they deliberately placed themselves in that state of mind (for example, drunk driving).

If you are of sound enough mind to make decisions, you are not mentally ill.

Depression is a disease. Suicide is a choice. TB is a disease. Perforated lungs is not a choice.

[ksoma]

Everyone with untreated TB will develop perforated lungs and die.
Many people who never are treated for depression commit suicide. It is not an ultimate end result brought on by the disease, it is a person choice one makes, that is being made by a brain that is unable to make logical decisions, because of that same disease.

[Asker]

"Depression is a disease. Suicide is a choice. TB is a disease. Perforated lungs is not a choice."
"If you do not have the ability to make sane decisions, you are not held accountable for what you did, but neither is your decision one that should be respected. "
I don't think I have to explain the contradiction and untreated TB has a 40-60% mortality rate.

[Bowshots86]

I voted yes, but only because of the death part, if they want to die then let them, but if the treatment can help them then give it to them. However if it is going to be forced on them they shouldn't have to pay for it. Not that i think things should be free just in that particular situation

[Offthelist]

Yes they should. I think emotional pain and physical pain to certain extents can be measured equally. They are just different forms of pain. mental illnesses can be just as painful by themselves if not progressing to forms physical pain or self inflicted pain. Physical illnesses and mental illnesses go hand in hand and i believe the both potentially trigger eachother if left untreated or at a Constant. However i dont think we need to legalize killing yourself. I think it further promotes that stage of 'giving up' and will push people who otherwise could have gotten better.. to make a fatal decision that couldve possibly healed. Honestly.. If you really want to die, what difference will 'breaking the law' to do so really make? And though psychological disorders and patients are seen as insane, i think they more often than not.. have an equal, if not stronger grasp of reality than others. (THEIR) reality.

Sanity is best judged by those who lack it. And its stupid to quantify pain based on the form it takes or the visibility of it.

[SunsetStar]

The general idea is that you should be able to make rational informed consent to whether or not you want to die. If someone's mental illness makes them think their situation is hopeless when it's not, or otherwise distorts their thinking about their life, then they can't really make rational informed consent. So it's not quite like someone who has a physical illness. If someone has a mental illness that can't be treated and that they understand what their death would mean, then that would be analogous. But that's not most cases of mentally ill people who want to die.

[Asker]

But many people who are committed turn out not to be a danger after all and as long as we allow forced commitment this will be a side effect that cannot be tolerated.

[Asker]

Also, there is still the right to refuse treatment even for diseases that would cause someone to die.

[SunsetStar]

Forced commitment can be abused. It can be wrong. But then so can jails - that's an argument for reform, but not necessarily an argument that the practice itself is wrong.

[Asker]

"The general idea is that you should be able to make rational informed consent to whether or not you want to die." Yet if someone wants to die then they're labeled as mentally ill so your arguments nonsensical from the start.

[MargaritaPeach]

Right to refuse treatment: yes. But only if you consent to being monitored. And if you become unstable, to being locked away in a mental health facility.

Right to euthenasia: absolutely. That should be everybody's right. It's your life to enjoy or destroy.

The reason I believe that one should be locked up if they refuse the medication that keeps them rational is that because without it, one can be a danger to themselves and others.

[DarkIndividual]

Why force treatment on someone who doesn't want it? Their life is their decision. It'd only be a waste of money, time, and resources, because chances are many of them will still want to die. After everything, some people still commit suicide.

[bryon]

I said yes they should but if they do they should be remanded to an asylum , untreated mental illness has no place running rampant in the streets

[meatballs21]

Didn't you ask a very similar question not too long ago?

Anyway - if you have mental illness, the risk is that you are not in the right frame of mind to make an informed decision regarding your treatment.

[BuchitaBuchys]

I had no idea physically ill patients had that freedom. So yes, but as last resort.

[blondfrog]

Yeah they do considering how much damage those drugs do to them anyways. Like Thorozine is such a terrible drug and can really fuck up your nervous system and they still give it to them.

[StarlightSwift]

If someone wants to die they should be able to. Why should you be able to stop them.

[Anonymous]

No because they re not in their right mind, ie "mentally ill"...

[Asker]

But then we could end up committing people who aren't actually suicidal (I'm a victim of wrongful commitment)

[ksoma]

the fact that some people are wrongfully committed does not mean that certifiably mentally ill people should be unconditionally allowed to refuse treatment.

And when you act to block people who are rationally arguing this point with you, you lose ground. When you ask a question, and retaliate when EVERY answer disagrees with you, you lose ground. If you want to put something out there as an idea, write a MyTake. If you want to ask a yes or no question, don't lose your shit when people answer the way you don't like.

[ksoma]

my response was to the asker, not the opinion owner. I picked to use this opinion to make my point because I agree with the opinion owner, and I am not usurping a conversation here.

[Opinion Owner]

@ksoma Couldnt agree more.

[Asker]

@ksoma " the fact that some people are wrongfully committed does not mean that certifiably mentally ill people should be unconditionally allowed to refuse treatment." But the problem is that we send people to mental institutions on the suspicion that they're mentally ill so they can't be "certifiably mentally ill" until being assessed after being detained.

[ksoma]

only if there is ground to assume that they are a threat to themselves or others.
If people could refuse to cooperate, those who are a threat to themselves and others are just as free to say "no," stay free, and actually hurt someone.

[Asker]

@ksoma We don't send people to prison or even arrest them for planning to commit crimes, we only send them after they committed the crime itself.

[Anonymous]

I'm voting no because that is how we got so many Vietnam vets turn into bums.

[cafeSOL]

mental illness doesn't exist.