Talk:Involuntary treatment

message: kotetsu131 (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

message: Thanks for your assistance in organizing this.  I hope more material gets added.  Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  thank you 

message: The topics covered on this page overlap with involuntary commitment.  Perhaps a merger would centralize the information discoverd.  Andrew73 14:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially since psychiatric conditions are not the only conditions for which involuntary treatment is used. Tuberculosis treatment, for example, is generally not optional. - Nunh-huh 04:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest merge with involuntary commitment 

message: If you object to some article content, then make your case.  Stop just erasing anything you don't like.  Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  24.55.228.56 -- please stop vandalizing 

message: Torrey is notorious for twisting statistics to suit his purposes but I note that pretty much every pro-psychiatry editor ends up relying on his www.psychlaws.org
Does anybody have any UNBIASED sources glorifying forced drugging?  Trotting out Torrey & TAC over and over again is really getting old. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  using TAC & Torrey as sources 

message: I have removed the article from :category:mental health as this is the parent category for :category: Mental health law in which the article is already placed along with being in :category: Psychiatry.--Vincej 05:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  categorisation 

message: This editor is pretty offensive and just deletes anything he doesn't like.  Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  please, editors -- somebody step in re 24.55 

message: I have merged Psychiatric imprisonment into Involuntary commitment. Since the Involuntary Commitment article is now longer it ought not be merged with Involuntary treatment. Therefore I removed the merge tag. —Cesar Tort 03:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  merged 

message: I myself have gone down the depressing inhumane road of involuntary treatment.  I cannot believe that anyone would actually justify it.  I have a condition on the autism spectrum, and I was miserable and depressed everytime I was medicated.  I hope people someday realize just how bad it is to be forcibly drugged the way that I was.
rebuttal to the comment above
I work in the mental health field in CA.  Involuntary treatment is most definitely a serious violation of a person's civil rights and must be taken very seriously as such.  However, the writer above and other "absolute" opponents do not make suggestion of an alternative for individuals who become temporarily unable to make rational decisions--and that state of mind does occur.  My observation is that the alternative becomes jail--a much more poorly regulated involuntary confinement.  How do we prevent suicide in a determined individual without temporary involuntary treatment?  How do we give a person with paranoia an opportunity to make an informed decision about his/her options if we do not obtain a Reese and give them medications to curb the paranoia so that they can understand no one is stalking, poisoning or otherwise harming them?  I am profoundly grateful to be working at a time when patients' civil rights are monitored closely.  I agree that a person has the right to choose the symptoms of the illness over the side-effects of the medication, but society has an obligation to give them the opportunity to experience the difference, to make an informed decision.  After that, their behavior is legitimately the pervue of law enforcement, before then to use jail is an even greater violation of their civil rights.  216.102.9.150 (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Involuntary treatment is disgusting.   

message: I heard that Act being invoked, or in the process of being ordered on Dr. Phil's episode "Alexandra and Brandon, The Intervention: Part 2", and I'd like to learn more about it.  Can there be a section about it, or a new article about it?Nbagigafreak (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marchman Act 

message: This article seems to only focus on the United States.  If an article can't portray a worldwide view then it is useless and should be deleted.  Anybody writing Wikipedia articles should ensure that what they are writing concerns not just the USA, not just English-speaking countries but the whole world.  This is a frequent problem with Wikipedia and it only serves to make it less relevant and make people believe the stereotype that Americans know very little about what goes on outside their own country.--ЗAНИA talk WB talk] 19:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  US-centric 

message: Every single citation in section 4 Mental health law is a broken link.  I don't know if this warrants the removal of the whole section but it doesn't look very good.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.165.87 (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken citation links 

message: It seems to me that this article is being used more as a soapbox for people with specific viewpoints on both sides of the issue rather than as a neutral source of the complete scope of discourse on this topic. Some references are questionable at best and there are blatantly leading phrases, scare quotes and weasel words throughout. Reading it makes me cringe as it is clear there is a continuing battle here to express one viewpoint over the other. An academic article is about what the entirety of the discourse actually is, not what the author believes it is.Staff editors take notice please, the quality of this page is absolutely unacceptable for an encyclopaedia. kotetsu131 (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unacceptably Biased and Unacademic 

message: This article seems to be wholly about involuntary treatment in the United States only. Shouldn't it be either globalized or renamed "Involuntary treatment in the United States"?  Also, there seems to be no clear demarcation between this article and Involuntary commitment. Might perhaps one be merged into the other? --Epipelagic (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Globalize/merge?

message: This looks to be more or less not far past the "some people threw some things to get it started on there" phase, which wasn't continued. Good detail on a smattering of points and overall wholly lacking. Also, the listed sources aren't bad, per-se, but even the last major edits were happening there was a lot more going on. Mad in America and Psychrights, in particular, are notable absences from the human/civil rights "side of the debate", while individuals and companies pushing involuntary commitment bills are also absent, like treatmentadvocacycenter, as is the counter-criticism between them as are the financial conflicts of interest of those players and so on. It also doesn't discuss or link to outcomes and metastudies, of which there have been a few good ones in recent years. Since the entire idea behind involuntary treatment is that it is both a justified and effective evil, this page should include such information or link to them (and they should probably be topics on their own). This is a huge and hugely important subject that is often not visible to mainstream society, despite impacting large numbers of people in extraordinary ways. It's also a subject in flux and with a vast wealth of old, bad "science". This needs a lot of work..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephmey (talk • contribs) 21:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is important but severely lacking and out of date 

message: Legislator note a different between involuntary treatment in the community, and detaining people and then treating them involuntarily detained. I'm not sure these are particularly different myself, but this does seem to exist in the literature, so we might want to make this clear in the useful table that Hploter added.  Talpedia (talk) 12:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Involuntary treatment under CTO 

message: I'd prefer to not cite wikipedia directly. It would be good if we dig up the secondary sources used by the italian wikipedian and cite them directly. I don't know what best practice is for citing foreign sources... I guess google translate is often "good enough for editors" I supposedly can read basic italian. Talpedia (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using wikipedia as a cite 

message: Sorry, they were correctly set on the preview but not on live for some reasons, will fix later  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hploter (talk • contribs) 20:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messed up sources in /*Detractors*/