That last point of yours is a very good one - I meant Roger's, his post was last when I started. Assuming he has a family that cares enough to do something - do something that might be necessary. Hopefully that is the case.
I get why patients who are committed voluntarily are treated better. I don't mean less disrespected, I mean getting more therapeutic help. It's the same thing I mentioned before: if someone insists there is no problem it is a big waste of energy to try and help. You can see the same thing in addiction help: if someone is not yet in the phase necessary to get help, they often refuse psychological or psychiatric care until you complete that phase. First things first, it's too hard to look beneath the surface and find the reason for your symptoms if you are struggling way to hard with your symptoms.
With psychotic people I suppose it's the same thing, first they need to get on the same page as you otherwise they are simply not ready to get into the cause of the matter.
Surprisingly it's almost the reverse opinion of the one I stated before, about views and perspectives. When someone is committed you cross beyond a point where it is established an individual cannot function, has a problem. Then the perspective of the caretakers is the one with precedence.
not really, here in GB these criteaia must be meet: that the patient has a mental disorder; and
that, because of the mental disorder, the persons ability to make decisions about the provision of medical treatment is significantly impaired
that if the person were not detained in hospital there would be a significant risk— .
to the health, safety or welfare of the patient; or .
to the safety of any other person
You say not really, but fundamentally I am reading pretty much the same thing. Only you are specifically naming separate criteria.
The criteria you mention are what I think are logical prerequisites for being a danger to yourself and/or others, at least in the context in which we are talking.
People who are mentally fit but wish to commit suicide, not on a fluke but for reasons they have had for an extensive period wherein attempt of help / recovery were futile, then I think those people should preserve the right to do exactly that. There are a LOT of people however who have not went through enough attempts at help and many of them don't want to die but want attention. People who have been over it all and still want to die, why would you take that choice away from them? Anyway that was not the matter at hand. Though self-harm was part of it.
People who risk the safety of another person are either legally accountable or legally insane (in the latter case your criteria are met), right?
So I think you agreed with me after all, if not I welcome you to explain further.
