Talk:Involuntary commitment

message: I added the POV tag as the entire section seemed to radiate the tell-a-tale signs of it. 
My issues:
*The evil/benevolent/whatever nature of a totalitarian system if for the reader to decide.
*Non-totalitarian systems have also sent people to the happy house for "homosexuality and adultery". The totalitarian systems of the world are not the only systems who've been total bastards to their citizenry in the name of "mental health".
Anyone have any feedback before I edit? - Brother Dave Thompson 23:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The DSM described homosexuality as a mental disorder. Isn't that an American publication? Who's to decide what is and isn't totalitarian? My suggestion. Change the header to "other countries". I put in a  tag for the paragraph on the Soviet Union. If someone is willing to find some solid evidence that this is true they should do so otherwise it will get removed in a few months.Mundilfari (talk) 08:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Whether you personally believe homosexual or adulterous behaviour to be morally right-or-wrong, they are acts which require a purposeful decision to act upon urges -- just like stealing money or baking a cake.  Mental illness is involuntary and cannot be compared in such a simple manner.  To counter your second claim of objectitivity: when somebody tries, for no reasonable purpose, to smash their head through a glass window in front of witnesses & CCTV, that's fairly objective proof of a mental health issue. Although many societies abuse the term "mentally ill" in order to punish political refuseniks or homosexuals, this does not change the fundamental requirement within any society to detain some people for their own safety or for the safety of others, if they are unable to control their behaviour. Mrstonky (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mental illness is NOT involuntary ( a double negative) . You claim "bad" behaviour to be involuntary, like a thief says he didn't steal the bread for his feeling of hunger. Whose fingers closed, whose hand took (stole) the money? Whose feet and legs ran away? People have freewill to chose to be "bad" or "good". To starve or to steal is a choice. Unable to control one owns behaviour is a fiction of the Elite.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I wouldn't completely reject the concept of uncontrollable behavior, sometimes I want to do some work but cannot. However, You've got a good point, it does not make sense for behavior caused by mental illness to be called "involuntary". Sure, not every insane person said "I want to be insane", but voluntarism is defined and decisions produced by a person's own thoughts regardless of how rational the thoughts are. You can't say that every smart person who walks across a bridge did so because he or she is willing, while all dumb people who walk across a bridge were forced to do so by their dumbness against their will. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Totalitarian countries

message: Should this be mentioned and if so how should it be approached?  --Daniel C. Boyer 19:18, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made a beginning on this standard but am conscious that it may be placed in the wrong area.  Any help with this would be appreciated.  --Daniel C. Boyer 15:42, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Gravely disabled" standard 

message: How in this article should the subject of halfway houses be dealt with?  --Daniel C. Boyer 19:53, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halfway house 

message: I presume you have removed the word "classic" from the description of Rosenhan's paper on POV grounds but I think it should be reinstated. Many papers are produced only to be read and forgotten. Some achieve the standard of being referenced many times and some achieve even more significance. These papers become seminal works that are read, referenced and respected as major achievements in the field. The contents of these papers are taught to all students of the field. This is what is usually understood by the term "classic paper", or at least in my experience. The qualifier "classic" thus imparts information and without this qualifier the impact of this paper on the field of psychiatry is less obvious. For instance, the title of the paper was in my memory when I wrote this section. I was then able to look it up on the internet and found 906 references on Google. By comparison "Outcome of schizophrenia: some transcultural observations with particular reference to developing countries" returns 146 sites. This is not a classic paper but falls into the middle of the groups I have mentioned. The main article on the Rosenhan experiment states, "The study is considered an important and influential criticism of psychiatric diagnosis." The SOED's first defintion for classic is "Of the first rank or authority; standard, leading." That is the meaning I intended. --CloudSurfer 07:40, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "classic paper" 

message: How should the controversial CCHR (with its connexion to Scientology) be brought up in this article?  --Daniel C.Boyer 18:54, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: My view is with a link that goes to an article that gives a background of the controversy. I know somewhere else there is a direct link to their site which might mean that unsuspecting people might take it at face value. I think if people have read the Scientology stuff then they can judge for themselves. --CloudSurfer 22:44, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be good.  --Daniel C. Boyer 20:26, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: CCHR

message: Is it true that Anyone may begin the commitment process by filing with the probate court an application alleging that someone has psychiatric disabilities and is dangerous to himself or others or gravely disabled. ?  Has anyone tried to use this to say that a politician (ie Bush) was insane by this method? You could propably prove that he is "Dangerous to himself or others "-- Guthrie 17:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be quite interested in use of this as a protest and the results of any research into this.  --Daniel C. Boyer 19:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protests 

message: The topics on involuntary treatment are covered on this page; perhaps a merger?  Andrew73 14:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That may not work, since 'involuntary commitment' infers legal means have been used to enforce commitment or coerce compliance with psychotropic drug prescription regimes, whereas involuntary 'treatment' (a euphemistic term for methods that generally inflict mild to severe brain damage) often begins with forced drugging during a 72 hour hold, even before legal proceedings begin.  Even without a court order, prior to release from a ward, patients may be subjected to long lasting injections (e.g., haloperidol).  Ombudsman 04:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The same holds true in the United States.  In emergency situations, combative or pscyhotic patients are treated with neuroleptics like haloperidol in order to stabilize the patient and permit care.  This may be viewed as "forced drugging," though this term seems a bit extreme as well; I doubt that short term exposure to these drugs causes permanent damage (aside from the risk of neuroleptic malignant syndrome).  Andrew73 13:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think re: the use of the term "forced drugging" whether or not "short term exposure to these drugs causes permanent damage" is irrelevant.  The use of these drugs may be beneficial or may be harmful (or a combination of the two), but it is certainly "forced," and is certainly "drugging".  I think the only possible criticism of this phrase is the negative connotation, but I don't think there can be any doubt that it is accurate.  --Daniel C. Boyer 17:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: At the same time, "combative" patients may be posing a physical threat to themselves and or other individuals.  "Forced drugging" in this situation, on an emergent, short-term basis is justifiable.  Long term involuntary commitment/treatment, at least in the state where I work, is regulated and cannot be done arbitrarily.  Andrew73 17:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I was referring more specifically to patients who pose a danger to themselves or other individuals; not a harmdless individual who was only refusing treatment.  Andrew73 02:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Of course the two articles need to be combined.  Contrary to the remarks of Vincej, commitment does not necessarily mean detainment. One can be committed for involuntary treatment without being detained (see Assisted Outpatient Commitment) This is just another article in which fringe antipsychiatry advocates and Scientologists will ply their wares.  I will keep an on eye on the site and eliminate the nonsense POV until it is inevitably merged.--24.55.228.56 16:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: "[T]here’s no question that MindFreedom Support Coalition International is on the fringe of psychiatric-reform advocacy." - The Boston Phoenix --24.55.228.56 04:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "That said, there’s no question that MindFreedom Support Coalition International is on the fringe of psychiatric-reform advocacy. Toby Fisher of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI), in Massachusetts, declines to comment specifically on the group. "I don’t know much about them," he says." - The Boston Phoenix 
So, 24.55, you're as dishonest as you are offensive.  What a sweet moment!  24.55 hoist by his own petard!Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Just like I said, MindFreedom is fringe. Fringe and obscure. Thanks for the cite and happy new year!--24.55.228.56 19:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I would propose that the term psychiatric detention would be more widely understood than involuntary commitment. Perhaps once the merger request is resolved a renaming of the page could be considered.  --Vincej 18:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  I think just about everyone knows, or could figure out, what both these phrases mean.  --Daniel C. Boyer 01:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest merge with involuntary treatment 

message: Is this 1979 Supreme Court decision still relevant? If so, I think it should be cited in the article. Apokrif 16:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addington v Texas 

message: If no objections I’ll merge the article not with Involuntary treatment, but with Psychiatric imprisonment. —Cesar Tort 22:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge article soon

message: I have merged an edited article of Psychiatric Imprisonment into the new section “Totalitarian countries”  and also did some minor copyedits in main article. Since it’s a longer article now it ought not be merged with Involuntary treatment. —Cesar Tort 03:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone who has been involuntarily committed numerous times, I agree with this terminology being in practice synonymous with the prior one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.228.245 (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged

message: Since electroconvulsive therapy is the mainstream term of use and since 'electroshock'
*is Ambiguous on wether it's about using electricity to induce a state of shock or just using an electric shock,
*does not describe the intents and purposes of the procedure,
*is not the mainstream term of use, but rather a derogatory term used by a very small minority group and
*Electroconvulsive_therapy is just a side note of this article
I have removed the 'also known as electroshock' part of the text under Treatment of illness
--Sinus 14:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Also known as electrochock

message: I hope you will forgive me if I'm missing something obvious, but I was looking up involuntary commitment laws and came across both this article, and an article at About.com's "Ask the Experts" site, and aside from maybe some paragraph shuffling, they seem to be verbatim copies of each other. I'm wondering how that can be possible without someone either plagarizing Wikipedia or violating Wikipedia's terms. The about.com page is at: http://experts.about.com/e/i/in/involuntary_commitment.htm
Maybe it's nothing, but it seemed odd to me so I felt I should mention it. If this has been explained before I apologize for wasting bandwidth. If it is as odd as it seems to me, I'm curious to see what the verdict is.
MadRabbit 10:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like they are copying the text from Wikipedia. Chupper 03:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: At the bottom of the page it states, "This is the "GNU Free Documentation License" reference article from the English Wikipedia", with a direct link to the article on Wikipedia, which means it satisfies Wikipedia's copyright requirements. --RoscoWolf (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identical to about.com experts page? 

message: It presents the point of view that involuntary commitment is bad. In reality, it is very hard (at least in the U.S.) to involuntarily commit someone. As a result, the large homeless population is composed of many mentally ill persons. I believe both points of view should be presented. --Mattisse 22:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would disagree with you , in Virginia they have over an 91% commitment rate.Virginia Citizens With Psychiatric Labels Under Siege--Mark v1.0 02:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would also argue that the homeless population is from a lack of [Affordable_housing]rather than lab-test-undetectable mental illness--Mark v1.0 02:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article seems POV 

message: The way current section is written, it sounds like there is a public disagreement about the TBS-system. As a resident, I do not recognize this tone at all. True, there are problems and scandals from time to time, but from my experience, the public opinion is not as negative as it's expressed here. The section should me more neutral.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.251.56.36 (talk) 08:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Netherlands 

message: In the opening paragraph USA policy is mentioned in what appears to be a passing comment initially, but is then used to segue the entire opening paragraph into a description of US policy on involuntary commitment. This information should be in the USA section and the opening paragraph written from a more global perspective.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.231.193 (talk) 11:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph USA-centric 

message: how useful is this category? are there also categories "treatment of..." depression, schizophrenia, etc etc. How many treatment related categories should be added? and commitment is not treatment, it is forcibly immobilizing or controlling someone so "treatment" can be administered, I think. EME44 (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Treatment of bipolar disorder" as a category? 

message: Civil confinement should be merged here as very similar notion. Another related article is SVP laws, but that should stay separate and be expanded because it's a US-specific set of laws, which would bias this article towards the US too much, and the SVP laws article has great potential for expansion (lots of reliable and detailed sources in External links). Tijfo098 (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think they should be merged because civil confinement would also bias the article towards the US too much. Trinitresque (talk) 12:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

text: No action and no consensus. Have removed tag. LT910001 (talk) 07:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil confinement 

message: The parallel between detaining someone for mental illness and witch hunts should be noted, as already noted by others as can been seen around the web. In both cases you are detaining someone because you think there is something wrong with them, but you can not provide any proof. If the psychiatrist  thinks you are mentally ill, you are mentally ill! The only hope for you, the patient, is to play a psychological game with the psychiatrist and hope you win.
Nowadays, if an officer wants to detain you  and has nothing against you, or if someone you know has a grudge against you, he calls out witch, sorry, mentally ill (suicidal, a danger to others), and voilà, you can get detained for at least a couple of days. Compare this to witch hunts of the old. Even if you are "proved" to be "sane" and released after a couple of days, depending on your personality, you will never forget the humiliation of being treated like a criminal. As for the officer, or the person who knows you, they achieved their objective. They managed to humiliate you legally. If you are homeless, the issue goes far beyond humiliation, and ironically, this becomes the leading cause of your mental deterioration.
In short, the parallel between the two is the ability to detain someone without any proof of crime.  --99.246.101.166 (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Witch Hunts 

message: As a premiss, the subject of the article is of interest of many areas of knowledge ranging from Medicine, to Law, to Sociology, to Ethics etc.
The choice of the heading i.e. "Involuntary commitment" seems to accord a linguistic preference to legal definition.
I would wish to observe, however, that the subject matter of the article is by epistemological nature and by psychological research of a relational nature.
Thus the legal terminology leaves in the shadow the fact that in "involuntary commitment":
* there is a term of the relation (the doctors, the court,..) which voluntarily commits a citizen to a specific course of experience
* there is a term of the relation, the "patient", who is forced to a specific course of experience,
So there is a party willing to commit the other to compulsory hospitalisation (or treatment, or detention, or lobotomy, etc. as it may be the case)
There is another party forced into the action determined by other relevant agent(s)
On its face "Involuntary Commitment" is a very innocent expression.
I suspect it does not render justice to the brute reality of facts or to the true substance of the matter.
My suggestion is that an alternative heading should be considered.
92.41.29.213 (talk) 09:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We generally use whatever title the typical reliable source (like a newspaper) is using, no matter what we personally think of the title they happen to prefer for a given subject.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Language Matters

message: Who pays for this in the US? In the UK it is free for anyone, even those who would not qualify for the NHS (for example, an American tourist returning from Africa and transiting London). Although emergency medical care is also free for everyone, once the patient is stabilized they need to start paying, but even compulsory outpatient psychiatric treatment is free in the UK 94.175.119.32 (talk) 09:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  payment? 

message: In this edit, somebody removed a few paragraphs about the involuntary commitment regimes in Arizona, Connecticut, Iowa, Michigan, Oregon, Nevada and Utah. I'll let others decide if that data is relevant enough for inclusion in this overview article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA state-specific information 

message: Currently, this reads:  "If civil commitment proceedings follow, the evaluation is presented in a formal court hearing where testimony and other evidence may also be submitted.[citation needed] The subject of the hearing is typically entitled to legal counsel and may challenge a commitment order through habeas corpus rules.[1]"
This may be accurate for certain American states but it's certainly not accurate for Canadian provinces. I'm in BC and there is no court hearing and patients aren't advised of their right to counsel. Patients are committed for an indeterminate length of time and then they have the option of appearing before the Review Board to try and negotiate their release. Could the article please state that regimes vary in different locations? E. Francesca Allan (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  introduction 

message: Many people who are considered insane have a desire to travel, immigrate, or emigrate to another location.  Upon release, it becomes a shady proposition.  Such folks might be intimidated into believing that migration to another State or Country would result in deportation, imprisonment, or litigation with no recourse.  Worse, there can be the idea that involuntary commitment will "follow" folks into a new city or State, and that there is not the option to start from a clean reputation, only to sully that reputation by going elsewhere and exposing authorities to charges and realities that existed somewhere else.  Is there anyone who can provide legal expertise on this matter?  173.14.238.114 (talk) 07:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Migration 

message: There is a link to Thomas Szasz on here. What about a section about his views of civil commitment? He was probably the loudest voice against civil commitment and psychiatric oppression. Michael Ten (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thomas Szasz 

message: I hope this isn't off topic or too wordy. I think it's difficult for readers to know what "more violent" means without some context, and I think presenting both the 1.3-1.8 figure or the 4-8 figure on their own would be to hide some controversy in the research. 
--Talpedia (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rates of violence with psychosis 

message: *Comment: If talking about merging the Commitment (mental health) article into the Involuntary commitment article, I don't feel strongly about that. I can support that as long as the content fits and there is no unnecessary redundancy. If talking about vice versa -- merging the Involuntary commitment article into the Commitment (mental health) article, I oppose. Involuntary commitment is a WP:Notable topic. I don't see a solid argument for not allowing it to continue to be its own article just because of the history stuff in the Commitment (mental health) article. Commitment (mental health) is mainly a history article. I can't even state "half a history article and half a criticism article" since even the criticism section focuses on history. In that article's edit history, it's noted that this content was split from the Institutionalisation article. Rather than merging the Involuntary commitment article into the Commitment (mental health) article, some other route should be employed. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Hey User:Sundayclose. I think this link might be more relevant than it at first seems from the name: this page discusses a form of indefinite outpatient commitment based on mental health rather than through the legal system. c.f.
"(1) That the person has been convicted of a sexually violent offense (a term that is defined applicable statutes) (2) That the person suffers from a mental abnormality and/or personality disorder, which causes him/her serious difficulty controlling his/her sexually violent behavior. (3) That this mental abnormality and/or personality disorder makes the person likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence if not confined in a secure facility."
I don't know if the page needs a better title. Talpedia (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is named that because that's what the laws themselves are called. But I think that a link to it from this page should use a different name or explain why it's linked, eg involuntary commitment laws for sexual violence. I agree that it is definitely relevant to this article, the laws are specifically about involuntary commitment of sexually violent predators  --Xurizuri (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

text: That seems like good solution. I've added a sentence describing this to the lead (there doesn't seem to be a natural place in the body of the article) Talpedia (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of link to [[Sexually violent predator laws]]