this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2025
179 points (97.4% liked)
Socialism
6381 readers
75 users here now
Rules TBD.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
But at what point is it considered right to impose treatment when someone creates horrible living conditions on themselves because they have a disease? Schizophrenia is treatable. Part of the disease is not wanting/trusting help. Once medicated, most schizophrenia patients, even those who were treated involuntarily, are grateful.
IMO the line is whether they pose a direct danger to themselves or others. (Ideally the healthcare system would be such that most accept voluntary treatment before reaching a severe stage.) If they're so far just hanging out in the woods and not hurting anyone, the treatment plan should be observation and attempts to reason them into voluntary treatment.
Involuntary treatment can have the unfortunate effect of feeding into a person's distrust, causing a loop of future involuntary treatment. If you can convince a patient to come in on their own you increase the likelihood that they'll continue their medication on their own.
I get that. But if forcing them to take medication leads to them having a huge quality of life improvement, including them realizing that they need the medication and are grateful for it?
I get what you mean, but unless someone is in actual danger or threatening others then what gives any of us the right to forcibly control what they do? I know people who suffer from undiagnosed issues due to their refusal to get therapy or try medication, but isn't it their right to refuse treatment? If immediate danger isn't the line then where do you propose we draw it?