 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
The Mental Health Act: The Real and the Imaginary How ironic for psychiatric survivors to be telling professionals and the general population what is real, and what is not. Here it is: The real Mental Health Act allows for people to be detained in psychiatric facilities against their will if they are likely to be a danger to themselves or others, or can not take care of themselves within several weeks. This Act already allows our people to be the only people in Canada who can be held in custody without committing any crime, or indeed any overtly dangerous act whatsoever. But this is not enough for some lobby groups. They want it to be easier. The primary reason for this is the imaginary Mental Health Act - that which the medical profession professes to be true at inquests and elsewhere. As was the case with the Consent to Treatment Act, the problem is not with the Act but with doctors' ignorance of it. Most doctors are not aware that "imminent" danger has been legally interpreted to mean within weeks. If anything should be required, it should be that the O.M.A. (Ontario Medical Association) or the College (of Physicians and Surgeons) be required to educate its members about relevant legislation. Instead they typically try to cover their failures and expand their powers by claiming the weakness is in the Act. It is not. And it is not just their ignorance of the Act that it is the problem - it is also their unwillingness to publically acknowledge that they do not possess the ability to predict dangerousness. The best predictive scale they have has only a 19% accuracy rate (see Harris, Rice and Quinsey: * available on request) - less than flipping a coin - and this is after extensive assessment. Contrary to how it may have appeared in the media of late, the reality is that the vast majority of violent crimes are committed by people who are not considered "mentally ill". In all fairness, if an individual's psychiatric history is going to be mentioned when they commit a crime, a person's lack of a psychiatric history should also be mentioned whenever a crime is reported. Statistically, if tranquillizing drugs are going to be forced on any segment of the population they should be forced on the "sane" - they are more likely to commit crimes of violence. How can you justify forcing drugs on us through "community treatment orders" when we are, statistically, less of a threat than you are? It would be funnier if it wasn't so frightening. Psychiatric drugs are dangerous. They can cause brain damage. No one should have the right to do this to another person. If a person occasionally "goes crazy" and wants a particular treatment at that time, she or he can say so in a Power of Attorney form. Concerned citizens would do well to promote the availability of these forms, and their use, rather than seeking easier ways to incarcerate and drug a community of scapegoats. It should be your job to lead the people with your knowledge, not to follow the ignorant mob. In sum, we recommend: - supporting consumer/survivor organizations - services being genuinely directed by and accountable class="Ver11-Inset" to the people they are intended to serve - funding alternatives to institutionalization, responsive to c/s's self identified needs - becoming educated about the real Mental Health Act, and requiring doctors to do the same - no changes to the M.H.A., including no community treatment orders. For more information, see: Shrinking the Freedom of Thought: How Involuntary Psychiatric Treatment Violates Basic Human Rights Home / No
Force Coalition Site / QSOS Site
|