Posted by mrtook on June 17, 2010, at 15:20:44 [reposted on June 18, 2010, at 1:00:56 | original URL]
In reply to Re: Scientology » Dan_MI, posted by chujoe on June 17, 2010, at 14:34:40
> I don't necessarily disagree with you -- even the mad have rights -- but just to play devil's advocate, what about someone who is psychotic and dangerous to himself or others? Should family or the state be able to "force" that person to take anti-psychotic meds? The situation seems to present competing interests that are difficult to reconcile.
So my blanket statement would apply more to those deemed "competent" I guess. Now what "competent" means, who decides it, and who decides the treatment are all debatable points as you correctly point out.
In my mind there would have to be very clear and compelling reasons to decide against competency. IE an immedate danger to self or others (a suicide attempt in progress)
BTW...is it possible to include in a Living Will your wishes in cases of onset of psychosis. (I.E. when you are judged of sound mind and body can you state the definitley do/do-not want a treatment for psyhcosis?)
poster:mrtook
thread:951392
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20100528/msgs/951399.html