Forced Drugging

[Nous]

In your opinion, when, if ever, should the government (i.e., someone acting on behalf of the government) be allowed to forcibly administer a psychotropic drug to persons?

(“Forcibly” just means “contrary to a person's consent”.)

 

[averageJOE]

I never want to live in a world where the government can create laws that can force people to take any kind of drug or medication against their consent.

 

[columbus]

In your opinion, when, if ever, should the government (i.e., someone acting on behalf of the government) be allowed to forcibly administer a psychotropic drug to persons?

I see this as one of the many new and different moral issues created by modern technology.

There are people with mental health issues that get enormous benefit from medication. But those same medications sometimes give them reasons to not take them. Or their illness does. So they don't want to take the drugs that make a competent decision possible.

Then what do you do? Violate their personal freedoms, having good reason to believe that they will be glad you did afterwards? Or let them "freely choose" self destruction?

I've watched this play out with people I was close to and it sometimes really ugly.
Tom

 

[LuisDantas]

In your opinion, when, if ever, should the government (i.e., someone acting on behalf of the government) be allowed to forcibly administer a psychotropic drug to persons?

(“Forcibly” just means “contrary to a person's consent”.)

When there is good reason to fear harm to that person or others, and no established statement from that person on whether he or she would prefer not to be given such drugs, at the very least.

Beyond that, it is perhaps unavoidably a thorny subject matter.

 

[McBell]

I never want to live in a world where the government can create laws that can force people to take any kind of drug or medication against their consent.

I assume you are not in the USA?

 

[averageJOE]

I assume you are not in the USA?

I'm in the US military and I'm in the position where I am forced to take medications.

 

[McBell]

I'm in the US military and I'm in the position where I am forced to take medications.

Medicines are forced upon those who do not want them all the time in the USA.

 

[Nous]

I never want to live in a world where the government can create laws that can force people to take any kind of drug or medication against their consent.

Unfortunately we do live in such a world. In the US, the Court has held that:

. . . the Due Process Clause permits the State to treat a prison inmate who has a serious mental illness with antipsychotic drugs against his will, if the inmate is dangerous to himself or others and the treatment is in the inmate’s medical interest.​

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/494/210

and:

. . . the Constitution permits the Government involuntarily to administer antipsychotic drugs to a mentally ill defendant facing serious criminal charges in order to render that defendant competent to stand trial, but only if the treatment is medically appropriate, is substantially unlikely to have side effects that may undermine the fairness of the trial, and, taking account of less intrusive alternatives, is necessary significantly to further important governmental trial-related interests.​

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-5664.ZO.html

Of course, the Court does not identify any reliable method for determining whether a prison inmate is dangerous to himself or others ("danger" implies some future act) and whether forced drugging is in the inmate's “medical interest.” The Court fails to grapple with the fact that there is no psychoactive drug that has been shown to render a defendant competent to stand trial, and there certainly is no “anti-psychotic” drug that is “substantially unlikely to have side effects that may undermine the fairness of the trial.” Just the contrary: studies consistently show that neuroleptic drugs result in worse outcomes, less functionality, and produce permanent effects of brain damage such as tardive dyskinesia. No psychoactive drug has even been shown to cure or correct a biological disorder.

 

[McBell]

and here I was talking about parents making their children get shots.....

 

[Nous]

I see this as one of the many new and different moral issues created by modern technology.

There are people with mental health issues that get enormous benefit from medication. But those same medications sometimes give them reasons to not take them. Or their illness does. So they don't want to take the drugs that make a competent decision possible.

Then what do you do? Violate their personal freedoms, having good reason to believe that they will be glad you did afterwards? Or let them "freely choose" self destruction?

You don't know of any psychoactive drug that has been shown to make an incompetent person competent, do you?

You don't know of any psychoactive drug that cures or corrects any biological disorder, do you?

Assuming you don't know of any such drugs, that answers your questions, doesn't it?

 

[Nous]

When there is good reason to fear harm to that person or others, and no established statement from that person on whether he or she would prefer not to be given such drugs, at the very least.

"No established statement"? Shouldn't a person be allowed to give his/her informed consent to be given a psychotropic drug?

Give a scenario of what you are referring to. What is a "good reason to fear harm to [a] person or others"?

 

[columbus]

You don't know of any psychoactive drug that has been shown to make an incompetent person competent, do you?

Yes, as a matter of fact I do.
I have known people whose lives were dramatically improved by careful administration of lithium and Haldol, and Cogentin, and such.
They are not magic and they have side effects.

My friend Randy was like two different people. When on his meds he was fun and sociable and happy. When off he was a freak, dangerous to himself and the people around him.
Tom

 

[Nous]

and here I was talking about parents making their children get shots.....

Note that I did define "forcibly" so as to avoid the topic of children who cannot give or withhold their consent.

 

[Nous]

You don't know of any psychoactive drug that has been shown to make an incompetent person competent, do you?

Yes, as a matter of fact I do.

Provide that evidence. Obviously one cannot conclude from an anecdote that a psychoactive drug has been shown to make an incompetent person competent.

BTW, are you sure you know what competent means?

 

[buddhist]

In your opinion, when, if ever, should the government (i.e., someone acting on behalf of the government) be allowed to forcibly administer a psychotropic drug to persons?

(“Forcibly” just means “contrary to a person's consent”.)

What kind of "person"?

 

[Nous]

What kind of "person"?

What kind of person? Any kind of person who can be forcibly (i.e., contrary to his/her consent) administered a psychotropic drug--which means any adult person who is able to deny his/her consent to be administered a drug.

 

[columbus]

Provide that evidence. Obviously one cannot conclude from an anecdote that a psychoactive drug has been shown to make an incompetent person competent.

I am not a clinical anything. All I have is many anecdotes with a clear pattern running through them. Many people benefit from the medications, but the results are spotty and uneven. All drugs are like that, some more than others.
I have spent a good deal of time volunteering on projects working with homeless people. Sometimes getting them secure access to their meds was one of the big hurdles.

BTW, are you sure you know what competent means?

No. Nobody does.
Some people think that Trump is competent and some do not. YMMV
Tom

 

[buddhist]

What kind of person? Any kind of person who can be forcibly (i.e., contrary to his/her consent) administered a psychotropic drug--which means any adult person who is able to deny his/her consent to be administered a drug.

I would suggest that most persons have consented, in light of how they have unfortunately contracted (in various ways) as agreeing to be a subject to those who might administer the drugs on their behalf.

 

[Nous]

I am not a clinical anything. All I have is many anecdotes with a clear pattern running through them.

You could try reading and understanding the evidence, couldn't you? Obviously one cannot determine the effectiveness of a drug by giving someone a pill then noting that the rash disappeared in a few days. Right?

 

[Lyndon]

If we stop trying to force anti psychotic and anti depressant medication on people that need it, you are going to see a lot more suicides, what would you rather be, medicated or dead.