Are you suggesting that no one is ever wrongly accused of a crime? No one is ever wrongly judged to be incompetent?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Forced Drugging
- Thread starter Nous
- Start date
How do you determine that someone "needs" a psychotropic drug?
The suicide rate in the US has certainly not declined with the increased consumption of psychiatric drugs. Just the contrary. Drugs referred to as "antidepressants" carry a Black Box warning of the drug causing an increased risk of suicidality.
No.
One thing I do understand is that the human mind is stupendously complex, treatment for mental illness is as well, and the use of medications further complicates the issues.
So I just go by what I have seen myself and trust the professional people to do the best we can, as a society, to help people have the best life possible under the circumstances.
Tom
buddhist
Well-Known Member
No, I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm merely stating that persons often unknowingly bind themselves into contracts by which, often unwittingly, they allow such evils to be done to them.
Sure. But that is not always possible before a decision has to be made. For instance, if when first met that person undergoing a violent crisis that endangers the person proper or others, or unable to communicate clearly.
I think a very strong case can be made that the person would need to be asked when not under influence, even.
Violent psychotic behavior, for one.
As it pertains to the Court's holding relating to forced drugging, competent just means the ability to meaningfully participate in one's defense against the charges.
Last edited:
By "violent crisis," you mean when a person is actively assaulting or threatening to harm someone else?
If someone can get to such a person to administer a psychotropic drug, why not just physically restrain the person, so that he doesn't harm someone during this "violent crisis"?
Can you name any publicized cases of someone having a "violent crisis"?
Wirey
Fartist
Yes. Someone crazy enough to need them can't be trusted to act in their own best interest.
I don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. I don't know what "unknowingly bind themselves into contracts" means. Nothing is accomplished by using such terms in such idiosyncratic ways. A contract is an agreement between two or more people.
Fortunately, I have never had to deal with a court's opinion about competency.
My experience is just about being able to reasonably deal with the people around you and take care of your own needs.
Tom
Is that supposed to be a coherent answer to the OP question?
What are the criteria by which to determine whether or not anyone is "crazy enough to need" a forcibly administered psychotropic drug?
You don't know of any psychotropic drug that cures or corrects any biological disorder, do you?
The ideas you expressed or the questions you asked in your first post about whether or when to "violate [a person's] personal freedoms, having good reason to believe that they will be glad you did afterwards," depend critically upon some particular drug being effective at bringing about some result. Right? So, if one cannot determine that a particular drug is effective at bringing about a desired effect, then there is no justification for forcibly administering that drug. Right?
That is a good example, yes.
One reason is because it should not be presumed that a person would rather remain unbalanced without some evidence.
It happens often enough when one is intoxicated with PCP or alcohol, at the very least.
buddhist
Well-Known Member
Plenty is accomplished using such idiosyncrasies.
For example, most people, if asked by an authority "do you understand these charges against you?" they would probably answer "yes". By stating such, they've just entered into a contract to be ruled by that authority.
The average person probably interprets that question to mean "do you know what you're being accused of?", when the authority actually means "do you agree/consent/contract to stand under to these charges this authority brings against you/do you consent to be a subject under my authority?"
The subject agrees, and can be "forcibly" drugged, or subject to any other punishment.
No, no one is consenting to be forcibly drugged merely by answering "Yes" to the question, "Do you understand these charges against you?"
buddhist
Well-Known Member
Of course it's not really forced, because they already agreed to it.
A person can be completely psychotic crazy when they commit a crime, and yet quite rational when they are forced to take anti psychotic medicine in jail, then a psychologist is asked to determine if they are sane enough to know right from wrong, and of course they are ON MEDICATION, so they are deemed not innocent because of insanity when in fact they were completely insane when they committed the crime, this in and of itself is a travesty of justice.
No one has ever died due to a Prozac deficiency. Get real.
This is the question I asked you in response to your initial comment: How do you determine that someone "needs" a psychotropic drug? How about attempting an answer?
You don't know of any psychotropic drug that cures or corrects a biological disorder, do you?
So you're saying that there's no such thing as forced drugging? You're saying that everyone has secretly, unknowingly agreed and contracted to be given a drug to which s/he is saying,"No, no, no, no"?Of course it's not really forced, because they already agreed to it.