The abolishment of mental health laws

General Philosophy
1

The aim of this article is to highlight a serious issue regarding the mental health act 1983 in the uk.

Some prior research of the act is therefore required of the reader before proceeding. (If you’re too lazy to do so proceed below anyway)

Let’s start

Human rights are violated when the state detains individuals who are believed to have a mental health problem. In order for this law to be fully enforced uk citizens are sectioned and imprisoned in secure hospitals without trial or jury. This erosion of fundamental liberty goes beyond the sphere of the justice system, the methods by which it does this are unnatural through the use of medication instead of attempting to understand the complexity of the human condition.

Psychiatry has a long history of human rights abuses and this arose from the need to control behaviour using any means necessary at the time including asylums, electric shock therapy and even lobotomy.

With the advance of science the methods have become subtle but no less cruel. With the introduction of medication whose methods of working and effectiveness are poorly understood the subject is stripped of what nature gave him. That is a mind which through various activity at the microscopic level is tampered by various types of medication. The aim of medication is intended to restore balance, this however only succeeds in violating free will which is accorded to man by nature.

Psychology textbooks are often filled with falsehoods from which a whole degree is formed in educational institutions that grant the eager student authority through the issue of a degree.

The degree then allows such students to become authority over those lacking expertise in this degree, often by chance or ignorance. The authority figure is engaged in a cat and mouse game of control complicit in the misunderstanding of the human condition due to unfounded premises in psychology textbooks.

The thereaputic approach is mostly overlooked in the United Kingdom in favour of alternatives such as coercive medication in the form of CTO by which non-compliance results recall to hospital which is often a type of prison for the patient.

Once stripped of free will, the patient is often left unable to defend themselves from this draconian law.

Psychiatry is often riddled with the false belief that the mind can be understood from behaviours whose testimony relies on second hand sources rather than an objective establishment of facts.

I raise this issue with the sincere hope that a change in law is due.

I present this issue here to gather relevant feedback and encourage discussion either to strengthen the argument made above or accept alternative proposals regarding this law whether it should stand or not.

2

I agree with you.

Apparently one can look well, and looks are enough to support that the medication is working.

They falsely support their medication, to the dire end.

You could be experiencing serious side-effects, and the medication states on the packaging that these side effects can happen, and they’ll still support the medication and blame the side effects on your lifestyle or things you consume.

It’s impossible to tell them their medication does nothing, you’ll always look weller to them.

3

You’re requesting feedback so i’ll provide my opinion to help strengthen your position.

n) You make alot of claims without providing any practical applications that defend your position. References to those legitimate sources would strengten this considerably. Ex. “In order for this law to be fully enforced uk citizens are sectioned and imprisoned in secure hospitals without trial or jury.” (This can sound like a whole bunch of malarkey without examples that defend your position.)

v) It reads like you havent put any research into any of this and most likely, if I were to guess, are having a emotional response to a situation that has caused you trama. Ex. “Psychiatry is often riddled with the false belief that the mind can be understood from behaviours whose testimony relies on second hand sources rather than an objective establishment of facts.” (Psychiatry is a huge field with many different branches. To provide you a example of how someone might interpret this. “Philosophy is riddled with false beliefs.” Which branch? Depending upon which branch, sometimes that’s intentional.)

p) Ex. “I raise this issue with the sincere hope that a change in law is due.” Without providing a way to improve the working model, their is nothing to provide action upon. (“I raise the issue that humanity needs to leave the solar system in space ships by this point in time” Okay I accept, but exactly how do we do this?)

z) Ex. “Some prior research of the act is therefore required of the reader before proceeding.” Some might interpret this as you presenting your arguments without necessarily being fair in the process. (aka you’re cherry picking only things that supports your position)

q) I would avoid potentially calling the person you’re attempting to sway as being lazy and find better words that get your points across. Ex. “If you’re too lazy to do so proceed below anyway.”

Thank you for caring and I hope this helps you in your fight against the status quo. (Go team Invicta. UK dont know who they messing with. We about to go gangsta on their asses. Pardon my french.)

1 Like
4

Forgive the rhetoric. The point is that minds sometimes accumulate memories, integrate information according to emotional triggers and feedback in order to understand the world around them and operate efficiently. I propose that medication interferes with this natural order. I don’t have all the answers as to how the field of psychology should deal with the shortcomings of its understanding of the human condition and as such have strong reason to believe that treating it with medicine rather than therapy misses a trick by taking a shortcut towards the rehabilitation of patients who have issues with proccessig the feedback that the natural world gives to us.

6

I’m not sure I understand why this thread’s title is the abolishment of mental health laws. Is it because mental health should be legislated like the somatic health where there’s is no forced confinement?

7

There’s a mistaken assumption by most candid professionals in the psychology field that the brain is just as susceptible to sickness as a heart or kidney is. This assumption has no basis in reality when scans of the brain cannot reveal areas where this is happening especially when the assessment is based on observed behaviour.

Think of it as a checklist. The professional engages in a box ticking exercise often without understanding the motivations behind such behaviour. In short they take shortcuts because truly understanding the patient takes an open mind and most importantly time.

This shortcut is often the medication. Unless of course the patient is converted by the ideology of modern textbooks that they are indeed ill.

There are usually two choices facing them at this point that is to accept or deny. Generally speaking acceptance is better as it means the patient is docile and compliant which is what the institution, society etc wants.

1 Like
8

Sickness is most often indicated by the actual manifestation of it. I see a direct parallel here (which I presume is in some sense a basis for your article) between the prior, un-informed approaches to physical illness which were usually worse than the illness itself. There are two responses to this, that I think are worth noting:

  1. Mental illness results in behaviour. Behaviour violates other people’s rights and so there’s a tension there which is no where near as clear-cut as your writing makes it appear; and

  2. There is a totally reasonable, albeit, very uncomfortable, argument that htis is part-and-parcel of the progress needed to get the places you want to get. However, I suggest it is not possible to deal with certain types of mental illness without confinement for safety of one’s self and others. This has happened to me in the past and I am thankful for it.

I think it’s probably also worth noting, as a legal professional, that when you read cases which result in involuntary confinement they are the result of committing crime. This means it’s an extremely small number of an extremely small group. Perhaps not hte society-wide issue it’s being purported as here.

9

No, psychosis cannot be “read” on a scan.

But, when in a psychotic state, the person affected is detached from reality. They may be at great risk of hurting themselves and others.

It is hardly a time to be concerned about their “rights” if their life is at risk.

3 Likes
10

True, given that observation confirms this. The criteria changes with each edition of the book as revisions continually take place in life and academia making old terminology redundant. As new terminology is introduced to society the relation between which condition the respected citizen wishes to accept never changes.

Indeed there’s a cause for concern when the actual symptoms are as old as civilisation itself.

11

I do not know whether your report on the state of mental health treatment and civil liberties is accurate. You read developments since 1983 as a disaster.

In the 1970s many of the American states reformed their mental health programs. Large regional mental hospitals were closed, the patients set free – meaning they were suddenly put out on their own with few personal resources. Laws providing for care required “the least restrictive” arrangements. It was thought that medication would replace the locked wards of the asylums.

It didn’t work out well. Many of the discharged patients ended up living on the streets where their mental health deteriorated a lot. Quite a few died on the streets. Once closed, no replacements were available for the board and housing that the asylums provided. Minimal welfare payments were insufficient to cover the most basic living costs.

Psychotropic medications (and even ECT) helped (and continue to help) patients. Medication works when patients are self-disciplined and receive regular follow-up care with a psychiatrist. Patients whose self-discipline is not strong are likely to go off medication pretty quickly. Doctors appointments are missed. Deterioration ensues later, usually sooner.

Many Americans read our changes in mental health law and practice as a disaster too – because “least restrictive” can lead to neglect.

I believe there are real mental illnesses which require medical intervention if the patient is going to have a decent life. Uncontrolled bi-polar disease (aka manic depression), psychosis, major OCD, and so on can be hell on wheels for the patient. Sure: medications have side effects. If you take too much aspirin you can develop ulcers in your stomach. I have my doubts about the expertise of the pharmaceutical companies that make these drugs. It’s pretty much the case that a new drug gets a few weeks of careful trial. If nothing disastrous happens, the drug is approved. Then the real testing begins as hundreds of thousands of people start taking the medication for their real disorders. Needless to say, a lot of undesirable outcomes can pass unreported.

1 Like
12

Perhaps we ought to look at this from another viewpoint than the legal history and how clueless psychology has been (or is still).

The underlying problem is that the whole idea of mental diseases / mental health is quite obscure and basically political. Something that earlier has been said to be a mental disease isn’t anymore viewed similarly (for example homosexuality). If your bone is broken or you have gotten a virus infection, modern medicine can easily make a diagnose of this and treat it. If you have “mental health issues”, modern medicine has little clue what is “wrong” with you and good luck if you get medication.

So the real question here is: can people be detained because of mental health issues even if they oppose this intervention on behalf of the government? If yes, then how should the current legislation be improved?

As I’m not a UK citizen, I don’t know well the mental health act of 1983 or in general how the UK system compares to my country (that is Finland). It’s likely that the UK model tends to use a reactive clinical model and the Finnish model is more of a coordinated welfare model where well-being and mental health are done across public health, education, and municipal services. But in reality how they work, I don’t know. Likely waiting lines are long in both systems.

Perhaps one aspect ought to be that we don’t get the result which the US has done: putting mental health patients on the streets and just not care. Adults can be put under custody. This is something that many times is needed. When, how? Those are the questions a good health care system and legislation ought to answer well.

13

Wh… what? It’s literally a system of attributing culpability as to a person’s ability to interact with society. If one cannot tell that stabbing people hurts them, there’s no politics involved. The policy falls out of hte reality, not the other way around. Mental aberrations are most damaging when not litigated.

1 Like
14

How we should interact in the society isn’t a medical question, it’s a social question. Obviously the example of stabbing someone, hurting others or oneself makes the intervention a rather easy question. Yet usually it’s not so easy. The fact is that a huge percentage of mental illness cases go unnoticed or untreated.

15

I’m not quite sure how this relates - some mental illness doesn’t require “treatment”. Some mental illness does, for the benefit of the person. But institutionalization is almost invariably a result of either the commission of, or the thread of, a serious crime.

Now, I understand that isn’t how it always plays out, but in terms of policy that’s the standard in most Western jurisdictions. Very, very hard to get someone committed.

1 Like
16

As a matter of fact, brain scans are not ordered routinely for some mental illness such as depression and bipolar disorder. But when a personality manifests a sudden change, such as a break from reality or violence, brain scans are done and there could be signs in the brain such as tumor, stroke, fluid build-up. So, to say it has no basis in reality is simply false.

While I agree with you that drug treatments sounds concerning, it has been proven that profound changes in behavior due to drug treatment has been a life-saver. High functioning mental illness. Our attitude towards medications is strange: somatic illnesses are routinely, and 100%, treated with drugs. Chemotherapy drugs will flow in all the crevices of body and brain. Let’s not forget that medications to treat somatic illness has a direct influence in the brain. You get high. Or you become a vegetable.

Also to reduce the psychiatric diagnosis to just a matter of checklist is also a simplification that has no basis.

No. Acceptance is better in order to save the patient’s life and the lives of others they might harm. And here is what’s shocking: Currently, the trial of Lindsay Clancy (in the US) is underway. She is the quintessential example of not only needing medication, but also psychiatric facility. She has been showing severe symptoms of psychosis, seeing doctors for her condition, before she killed her three children. Close to 100% violent mentally ill were living free in society before they were taken to prison or psychiatric hospital. But they were exhibiting symptoms of break from reality.

1 Like
17

Depending on the crime there’s a criminal justice system that can weigh such actions. The issue is that the mental health act bypasses the course of law by committing patients to hospitals usually without trail.

18

Obviously it shouldn’t be an easy and routine thing to do!

The guideline of the situation being where the person isn’t capable at all to live a normal life and poses a threat to his or her life or others ought to be the only occasion where the decision of involuntary intervention should be “easy”.

19

I think that’s a bit off. Someone can be fully capable of living their life with aplomb, and still be a serious danger to those around them.

I had a paranoid schizophrenic uncle. He could do everything but stop himself from attacking those he thought (imagined) were trying to piss him off, constantly.

20

Hmm. I would say a court-ordered mental evaluation is probably good enough. The point of which is to avoid having a mentally/morally compromised person have to run a trial.