Updated on March 13, 2025
Recently, I have met several groups on Facebook and other places that claim to be for the rights of the mentally ill. They talk about defending their rights through demands and online campaigns. They also support the prohibition of the rights of a doctor to give psychotropic medications/psychiatric treatment without consent. These are well -intentioned people with little understanding of logic or no experience with those with serious mental illnesses or simply antipiquiatry nut.
I admit that I fell in love with one of these groups at first glance. But when reflecting and investigating more, I have concluded that these people do not have a leg to stand up.
Doctors give medical treatment without consent all the time
Consider this, if a person enters the unconscious emergency room, doctors do what is necessary to save that person’s life. No matter what happened to them, or what their diagnosis is, doctors try to save them. The patient cannot give his consent. They are unconscious. This treatment could, in fact, kill the person, but doctors do their best even though the person cannot give their consent at that time. (There are legal exceptions to this as an order not to resurrect, but those are the rare exceptions). Doctors make difficult decisions. They do it all the time. It is your work.
Doctors do this because it is their work to do whatever the best for the patient as much as he can. That is why we have Doctors We have them because these people know how to make complicated medical decisions and that we cannot take ourselves. They were a decade (or more) from school for this reason.
Why didn’t a doctor care for the mentally ill in the same way?
Now consider the following, a person is taken to the emergency room, probably by the police, in a psychotic episode. This person could have been running naked, or shouting in the air, or otherwise behaving erratically, possibly dangerous and clearly badly. This person does not have the ability to give their consent for medical treatment. His brain is currently not his. They are a danger to themselves and possibly for others. (This is how they ended up in the emergency room first. If they were not a threat, they would not be there). The patient is shouting not to give them medications between threatening the roof tiles.
If a person with mental illness cannot give their consent, the doctor has only 3 options
Theoretically, the doctor has three options.
- The doctor releases the patient. The patient does not want treatment, so they are released. However, the person is possibly a danger to themselves or for others, so the police may have to act, it is not good for the person with mental illnesses. Even if the police do not, the person can easily do any amount of horrible things before leaving their psychotic episode. The person could die. The person could hurt someone else. You believe it or not, many doctors care about those things.
- The doctor can put the person in a padded room and leave it there until they leave their psychotic state. This would probably also be without its consent, but does not imply any «treatment» per se. But how long is it reasonable to leave a restricted person or in a padded room? What are doctors should do with that person? Are health workers supposed to somehow meet the needs of the person such as food, water and go to the bathroom while the person is tied to a bed or in a cell phone -shaped room? That sounds ridiculous, impossiblely difficult for health personnel, and not particularly human.
- The doctor can treat the person. Yes, this means medications. Probably a rather heavy antipsychotic to calm the person so that it is not a danger to anyone around him and remove them from psychosis.
Are you really suggesting that one or two are better than three?
Not medicating people without consent only sounds like a good idea
See, do not medications for people without consent Sounds As a good idea, but in the real world, it simply does not work. It doesn’t work because We have no better ideas. If it were simply a matter of flashing them in safe sanity, it would be in favor, but so far we have not developed genius technology. Nobody likes the idea of medicating someone against their will. But mental illness is difficult. Many times, there are no other options.
I agree that once a person is stabilized and can once again appreciate their situation, you can choose not to consent to additional treatment. I am not suggesting that they are medicated forever. And, frankly, if the person never left his house and never hurt himself or others, he could be as psychotic as he would like without discomfort or anyone else. But when it occurs in an emergency room that insists on committing suicide or threatening to stab the blue men sitting on the shoulders, something should be done. If there was no serious problem, it would not be in the emergency room first.
Nobody likes to do anything against his will, I understand. Me neither. But just as he could be in a horrible accident just to wake up and find his amputated arm out of medical necessity, he can also find that after losing contact with reality he wakes up to be medicated. This is a bad solution, but again, I am not listening to better ideas. Nobody wanted to amputate an arm, and nobody wanted to medicate the person either.
[There is this sneaky belief that doctors want to medicate their patients. That they take secret pleasure in forcing colored tablets down a person’s throat or injecting them with a substance. I don’t believe this to be true. While there’s certainly no accounting for everyone, I don’t think anyone is satisfied with that solution; it’s just that we don’t have a better one.]
So yes, it is stupid to think that doctors should not be able to medicate you without consent
That is his work, in the case of mental illness and in the case of any disease. So, the next time someone goes out against the evil doctors who prescribe evil medications, I suggest that I ask that person what the doctor wants to do after having a heart attack and his heart has stopped. I mean, you would not want hundreds of electricity joules that are pumped to your chest without prior consent; That would be only inhuman.
[This argument, by the way, completely glosses over all the legal ramifications of consent, which I did on purpose, as I’m not a lawyer. I will say, though, that medicating a person without consent isn’t as easy as suggested above, particularly when lawyers take an interest.]
Other publications you could enjoy
