This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wrongful involuntary commitment was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 30 July 2020 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Involuntary commitment. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
The contents of the Commitment (mental health) page were merged into Involuntary commitment on 14 September 2021. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The contents of the Psychiatric imprisonment page were merged into Involuntary commitment on 21 June 2006. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
I added the POV tag as the entire section seemed to radiate the tell-a-tale signs of it.
My issues:
Anyone have any feedback before I edit? - Brother Dave Thompson 23:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite}}
tag for the paragraph on the Soviet Union. If someone is willing to find some solid evidence that this is true they should do so otherwise it will get removed in a few months.
Mundilfari (
talk) 08:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)You can not compare the issue of "homosexuality and adultery" to the issue of the so called "mental illness". When it comes to "homosexuality and adultery" it is an issue of civilization, and a civilized person keeps his head between his shoulders, not between his legs; some people simply have higher standards. Just look at the divorce rates and the lives of men and women in the countries that allow such rubbish. Women there live like toilets, from one man to the next (ofcourse every temporary period with a man is called love untill they "break" their relation). Anyways, it is an issue of values and tangible crime. Of course, calling homosexuality or adultery a "mental illness" is absolute rubbish. The issue of mental health on the other hand, is one where an officer can just detain you without breaking any law. When all else fails, when you have nothing against him, call him a witch or, as the "civilized people" put it, "mentally ill". This is incredible power that goes against our very nature; some complete stranger can threaten your freedom because he decided he can help you! He can not tell you what is your crime, all he says I am here to help you. If you fight back, it is a crime. If you run, it is a crime! This is very serious, and mostly serious to the homeless. -- 99.246.101.166 ( talk) 16:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Another thing I would like to point out in case it was not understood from what I previously wrote, is that with homosexuality and adultery, regardless of your views on them, you can provide real evidence whether they happened or not. A witness, a blood test, etc. With "mental illness" you can not. There is simply no objective proof that you are mentally ill. -- 99.246.101.166 ( talk) 16:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The contents of this article have been dealt with in a much more informative, neutral, and coherent manner in Involuntary commitment. I would advise that this article needed cleaning up, but the article itself is unnecessary. Therefore, I recommend that it be deleted in its entirety. IronDuke 22:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Added mention of controversy (from a civil-liberties perspective) over civil commitment.
Daniel C. Boyer
Added more text. One needs to make a distinction between psychiatric commitment and civil commitment. People have been arguing about psychiatric commitment since the 1960's, and that issue is well argued. Civil commitment for sex offenders is something entirely new.
Added mention of Lawerence Stevens as exception to "few would argue that under no circumstances should a psychiatric patient be held against their will".
Daniel C. Boyer
Added mention of ordering people to take psychiatric medication as an alternative to involuntary commitment and a cause for the decreased incidence of involuntary commitment.
Daniel C. Boyer
Added link to Lawrence Stevens article.
Daniel C. Boyer
Added parenthetical mention of "mad liberation."
Daniel C. Boyer
Added mention of nearly-synonymous "mental hygiene" laws.
Daniel C. Boyer
The "danger to self or others" standard of the Baker Act (paralleled in many other mental hygiene laws) is supposed to be protective of the civil liberties of those who might be wrongly committed, which is ridiculous as it is hardly a bright-line test and is indeed one of nearly infinitely open-ended ambiguity. The test is based on the assumption that it will be used in a certain way, but facially almost every individual could be called a "danger to self or others." Judge Watchler has pointed out (and I maintain this is putting it mildly) that "dangerousness" is "open to various interpretations" (Mtr. of Torsney, 47 N.Y. 2d 667, 686-87 (Ct. App. 1979)(Wachtler, J., dissenting).
Daniel C. Boyer
Might the mention of the Stevens article on suicide be better placed under the article on suicide? What is its relevance to this?
Daniel C. Boyer
I am concerned that the passage relating to the 1960s ("the involuntary commitment were lax and this led to a number of horror stories of people with no mental illness being trapped in an institution") might lead readers to believe this does not occur today when it can and does. Could this be reworked to relieve this possible misimpression?
Daniel C. Boyer
See here for a possible criticism of involuntary commitment. -- Daniel C. Boyer
"It is typically used against patients with mental illness, particularly schizophrenia."
"Unfortunately, community care facilities were in general not well-funded, and this resulted in many mental patients left to fend for themselves." This is not NPOV. Perhaps this should be rewritten to indicate that the flaw in the theory, when put into practice, was that "community care facilities were in general not well-funded" rather than using the word "unfortunately". -- Daniel C. Boyer
This entire article is U.S.-centric and revisions should be made to it to make it less so. -- Daniel C. Boyer 14:16 Oct 2, 2002 (UTC)
The practice of involuntary commitment does not necessarily violate the First Amendment (see anti-psychiatry), but it might. -- Daniel C. Boyer
I am puzzled by commitment of persons suffering from dementia (senile aswell as pre-senile) isn't focused in the article. That ought to be a pretty large group, also in USA. -- Johan Magnus 01:08 19 May 2003 (UTC)
Criticism that this article is U.S.-centric (with which I strongly agree) should be solved by adding info on the situation in other countries. -- Daniel C. Boyer 21:37, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Should this be mentioned and if so how should it be approached? -- Daniel C. Boyer 19:18, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
How in this article should the subject of halfway houses be dealt with? -- Daniel C. Boyer 19:53, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This article currently has no headings in the body of the text. These need to be inserted. As a psychiatrist reading this I find no mention of WHY psychiatrist use involuntary commitment. The article has a creeping POV that seems to imply that involuntary commitment is necessarily bad.
No mention is made of it being used in the absence of informed consent or the inability to obtain informed consent because of psychotic thinking. For instance, a severely depressed person may passively accept hospitalisation but be incapable of giving informed consent due to psychomotor retardation.
What is wrong with the word "for" instead of "against". Does "against" have a special legal meaning in this context?
This would be clearer as, "Most people would agree that there are circumstances when some psychiatric patients should be held without their consent, ..."
I presume you have removed the word "classic" from the description of Rosenhan's paper on POV grounds but I think it should be reinstated. Many papers are produced only to be read and forgotten. Some achieve the standard of being referenced many times and some achieve even more significance. These papers become seminal works that are read, referenced and respected as major achievements in the field. The contents of these papers are taught to all students of the field. This is what is usually understood by the term "classic paper", or at least in my experience. The qualifier "classic" thus imparts information and without this qualifier the impact of this paper on the field of psychiatry is less obvious. For instance, the title of the paper was in my memory when I wrote this section. I was then able to look it up on the internet and found 906 references on Google. By comparison "Outcome of schizophrenia: some transcultural observations with particular reference to developing countries" returns 146 sites. This is not a classic paper but falls into the middle of the groups I have mentioned. The main article on the Rosenhan experiment states, "The study is considered an important and influential criticism of psychiatric diagnosis." The SOED's first defintion for classic is "Of the first rank or authority; standard, leading." That is the meaning I intended. -- CloudSurfer 07:40, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
How should the controversial CCHR (with its connexion to Scientology) be brought up in this article? -- Daniel C.Boyer 18:54, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Is it true that Anyone may begin the commitment process by filing with the probate court an application alleging that someone has psychiatric disabilities and is dangerous to himself or others or gravely disabled. ? [1] Has anyone tried to use this to say that a politician (ie Bush) was insane by this method? You could propably prove that he is "Dangerous to himself or others "-- Guthrie 17:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
It is my belief that it is absolutely an indication of the horrific situation those involuntarily committed find themselves in if CCHR is the main practical source of the securing of any rights they are supposed to have, which evidently it may be in some major way. The Church of Scientology has its own skeletons of forced commitment of people using their own so called mental health treatment with sometimes deadly results. Beyond that the extreme position of an organization that thinks it is the answer to everyone's issues renders their participation less credible. But if they get a patient out from a situation in which rights of all kinds are in practice denied and the length of stay in such places is arbitrarily extended as it often is, it rightfully earns some respect for what it does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.228.245 ( talk) 23:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The topics on involuntary treatment are covered on this page; perhaps a merger? Andrew73 14:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Certainly in British Columbia patients can be treated involuntarily without a court proceeding. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
In many cases, "combative" patients are just trying to prevent psychiatric assault. Resistance is considered assault. And it's not only emergency situations -- such "treatment" can go on for months without a court proceeding. Being jumped by guards, thrown on the floor and injected is the very definition of forced drugging. I can't imagine wanting to dress it up as anything else. Once you're incarcerated on a psych ward, it's up to you to prove yourself sane. It's the complete opposite of the way it works in the criminal justice system. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Really? What if the only source of the "combat" is that the patient very much doesn't want to be treated? Is slamming people onto the floor and injecting them with neuroleptics still okay? Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 02:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The trouble is that it's impossible to correctly judge who poses a danger. And the standard of what constitutes danger varies wildly. "Only refusing treatment" gets many people locked up. Psychiatric treatment, especially in emergency situtations, is brutal and tends to escalate violence. We wouldn't allow convicted felons to be treated as poorly as we treat mental patients. Forced drugging is NEVER justifiable. It's a human rights violation that's got to stop. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I Oppose the merger as the two articles describe separate things. It is possible (although not necessarily legal) to be involuntarily detained/committed without being treated and involuntarily treated without being detained. The latter possibility is currently being discussed in the UK in revision of the Mental Health Act. The discussion above about the issue of human rights and involuntary treatment I believe qualifies this article for inclusion in category:medical ethics. -- Vincej 05:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, 24.55, perhaps you should try reading Vince's comments again as you appear to have completely misunderstood what he was saying. Any reason you must be so offensive? I support human rights in psychiatry. I am not a "fringe antipsychiatry advocate" nor a "scientologist" nor am I "plying any wares." Contrary to your self-serving delusion, you haven't been "eliminating nonsense POV" but just offensively and anonymously reverting various editors' useful input. Your edits are just as POV as the ones you attempt to "correct." As is evidenced on your talk page, your conduct has not gone unnoticed by wiki admin. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 02:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
If you read it, then it must be true. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
And now let's have that quote in its context:
So, 24.55, you're as dishonest as you are offensive. What a sweet moment! 24.55 hoist by his own petard! Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Once again, 24.55, you manage to completely miss the point. The article claims that MindFreedom is on the "fringe" but says nothing in support of that assertion. Indeed, NAMI's spokesperson can't either. MindFreedom is not an obscure group. They have consultative roster status with the United Nations. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 01:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Having read the article on Assisted Outpatient Commitment it seems to me that Outpatient Commitment is not the same as Involuntary Commitment and would fit better with the concept of Involuntary Treatment. However, these terms are unfamiliar to me as I am from the UK. May I suggest that we use terms that are more internationally understood to demonstrate these distinct concepts. -- Vincej 09:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Vincej, I agree. Outpatient commitment is just one form of many forms of involuntary treatment. Please elaborate on international terminology. It would be great if everybody knew what we were talking about. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 16:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Is this 1979 Supreme Court decision still relevant? If so, I think it should be cited in the article. Apokrif 16:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
If no objections I’ll merge the article not with Involuntary treatment, but with Psychiatric imprisonment. — Cesar Tort 22:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I have merged an edited article of Psychiatric Imprisonment into the new section “Totalitarian countries” [4] and also did some minor copyedits in main article. Since it’s a longer article now it ought not be merged with Involuntary treatment. — Cesar Tort 03:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Since electroconvulsive therapy is the mainstream term of use and since 'electroshock'
I have removed the 'also known as electroshock' part of the text under Treatment of illness
-- Sinus 14:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello Sinus, you indicated that electroshock "does not describe the intents and purposes of the procedure".
The problem is that "electroconvulsive therapy" indicates the procedure as a "therapy" which from its ancient greek roots "therapeuo" means "cure"
I do appreciate that you refferred to the "neutral point of view...", nonetheless, the question whether
-the procedure is used to cure, to reinstate the health of patients, or
-to shock the patient in order to handle s/he according to medical goals (which in the cases in question try to balance between the interests of the patient and those of the community)
which I suspect is a legitimate question, would be better left open using the term "electroshock"
I may be wrong but I feel that reinstating 'also known as electroshock' would better mirror the duplicity of goals sought by the "therapy".
Criticism and contrary viewpoints welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MauroUsai ( talk • contribs) 08:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I hope you will forgive me if I'm missing something obvious, but I was looking up involuntary commitment laws and came across both this article, and an article at About.com's "Ask the Experts" site, and aside from maybe some paragraph shuffling, they seem to be verbatim copies of each other. I'm wondering how that can be possible without someone either plagarizing Wikipedia or violating Wikipedia's terms. The about.com page is at: http://experts.about.com/e/i/in/involuntary_commitment.htm
Maybe it's nothing, but it seemed odd to me so I felt I should mention it. If this has been explained before I apologize for wasting bandwidth. If it is as odd as it seems to me, I'm curious to see what the verdict is.
MadRabbit 10:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It presents the point of view that involuntary commitment is bad. In reality, it is very hard (at least in the U.S.) to involuntarily commit someone. As a result, the large homeless population is composed of many mentally ill persons. I believe both points of view should be presented. -- Mattisse 22:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The way current section is written, it sounds like there is a public disagreement about the TBS-system. As a resident, I do not recognize this tone at all. True, there are problems and scandals from time to time, but from my experience, the public opinion is not as negative as it's expressed here. The section should me more neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.251.56.36 ( talk) 08:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
-- Your opinion is not to recognize this ? I'm a Dutch native and all the time there are discussions about the so called 'TBS system'. It’s inhumane, mentally abusive, torture like and so on... how does the Dutch society want the return of these help needing people? if they continue this way, they are putting a kettle on the furnish... Retrorick wikipedia talk 14:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
i need to know how to ack around a Psychiatrist. im not crazy but im scared. how do i talk sit or anything. i know that im not crazy its just that how would you feel if your parents were trying to commit you into something you didnt think that was right for you? im pretty sure you wouldnt. the reason they are considering this is because i dont listen to them. also i think its because they found out i smoke. i dont understand. how do i get help? thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.39.79.2 ( talk) 12:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
In the opening paragraph USA policy is mentioned in what appears to be a passing comment initially, but is then used to segue the entire opening paragraph into a description of US policy on involuntary commitment. This information should be in the USA section and the opening paragraph written from a more global perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.231.193 ( talk) 11:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
how useful is this category? are there also categories "treatment of..." depression, schizophrenia, etc etc. How many treatment related categories should be added? and commitment is not treatment, it is forcibly immobilizing or controlling someone so "treatment" can be administered, I think. EME44 ( talk) 07:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Civil confinement should be merged here as very similar notion. Another related article is SVP laws, but that should stay separate and be expanded because it's a US-specific set of laws, which would bias this article towards the US too much, and the SVP laws article has great potential for expansion (lots of reliable and detailed sources in External links). Tijfo098 ( talk) 18:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The parallel between detaining someone for mental illness and witch hunts should be noted, as already noted by others as can been seen around the web. In both cases you are detaining someone because you think there is something wrong with them, but you can not provide any proof. If the psychiatrist thinks you are mentally ill, you are mentally ill! The only hope for you, the patient, is to play a psychological game with the psychiatrist and hope you win.
Nowadays, if an officer wants to detain you and has nothing against you, or if someone you know has a grudge against you, he calls out witch, sorry, mentally ill (suicidal, a danger to others), and voilà, you can get detained for at least a couple of days. Compare this to witch hunts of the old. Even if you are "proved" to be "sane" and released after a couple of days, depending on your personality, you will never forget the humiliation of being treated like a criminal. As for the officer, or the person who knows you, they achieved their objective. They managed to humiliate you legally. If you are homeless, the issue goes far beyond humiliation, and ironically, this becomes the leading cause of your mental deterioration.
In short, the parallel between the two is the ability to detain someone without any proof of crime. -- 99.246.101.166 ( talk) 16:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
As a premiss, the subject of the article is of interest of many areas of knowledge ranging from Medicine, to Law, to Sociology, to Ethics etc.
The choice of the heading i.e. "Involuntary commitment" seems to accord a linguistic preference to legal definition.
I would wish to observe, however, that the subject matter of the article is by epistemological nature and by psychological research of a relational nature.
Thus the legal terminology leaves in the shadow the fact that in "involuntary commitment":
So there is a party willing to commit the other to compulsory hospitalisation (or treatment, or detention, or lobotomy, etc. as it may be the case)
There is another party forced into the action determined by other relevant agent(s)
On its face "Involuntary Commitment" is a very innocent expression.
I suspect it does not render justice to the brute reality of facts or to the true substance of the matter.
My suggestion is that an alternative heading should be considered. 92.41.29.213 ( talk) 09:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC) MauroUsai
Who pays for this in the US? In the UK it is free for anyone, even those who would not qualify for the NHS (for example, an American tourist returning from Africa and transiting London). Although emergency medical care is also free for everyone, once the patient is stabilized they need to start paying, but even compulsory outpatient psychiatric treatment is free in the UK 94.175.119.32 ( talk) 09:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
In this edit, somebody removed a few paragraphs about the involuntary commitment regimes in Arizona, Connecticut, Iowa, Michigan, Oregon, Nevada and Utah. I'll let others decide if that data is relevant enough for inclusion in this overview article. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 09:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Currently, this reads: "If civil commitment proceedings follow, the evaluation is presented in a formal court hearing where testimony and other evidence may also be submitted.[citation needed] The subject of the hearing is typically entitled to legal counsel and may challenge a commitment order through habeas corpus rules.[1]"
This may be accurate for certain American states but it's certainly not accurate for Canadian provinces. I'm in BC and there is no court hearing and patients aren't advised of their right to counsel. Patients are committed for an indeterminate length of time and then they have the option of appearing before the Review Board to try and negotiate their release. Could the article please state that regimes vary in different locations? E. Francesca Allan ( talk) 13:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Many people who are considered insane have a desire to travel, immigrate, or emigrate to another location. Upon release, it becomes a shady proposition. Such folks might be intimidated into believing that migration to another State or Country would result in deportation, imprisonment, or litigation with no recourse. Worse, there can be the idea that involuntary commitment will "follow" folks into a new city or State, and that there is not the option to start from a clean reputation, only to sully that reputation by going elsewhere and exposing authorities to charges and realities that existed somewhere else. Is there anyone who can provide legal expertise on this matter? 173.14.238.114 ( talk) 07:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
There is a link to Thomas Szasz on here. What about a section about his views of civil commitment? He was probably the loudest voice against civil commitment and psychiatric oppression. Michael Ten ( talk) 06:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey, normally you can challenge stuff by adding citation needed tags but anyway. The citations (and sentence they were citing) are only true in the US, not other countries, I was in the process of finding where this could fit into the article (since I felt a discussion on the internaional variation in commitment standards did not fit in the lead).
Anyway, I'll do all the edits in one go and if you then look at the article and tell me - which bits are untrue or what you would like to be changed (or make the edits yourself... unless you want to completely remove the material in which case we might need more of a discussion).
-- Talpedia ( talk) 16:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I hope this isn't off topic or too wordy. I think it's difficult for readers to know what "more violent" means without some context, and I think presenting both the 1.3-1.8 figure or the 4-8 figure on their own would be to hide some controversy in the research.
-- Talpedia ( talk) 23:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I propose that we merge Commitment_(mental_health) into this article because they seem to cover the same topic. The other article is to do with the history of commitment and the history if its criticism, so an alternative would be to rename this article to the history. I have spoken about this topic on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Merging_of_commitment_with_involuntary_commitment, and wrote about it on Talk:Commitment_(mental_health) @ Fgnievinski: suggested that this page be merged into the other page. @ Ozzie10aaaa: expressed some doubts because both articles were quite long. @ Flyer22 Frozen: said she felt that in the event of a merge this page should remain citing WP:Common name. I agree because the other page is relatively new while this page has more of a history and more people watching the page. Flyer22 Frozen suggested pinging @ Sundayclose:. I have just added merger proposal banners to both talk pages now. Flyer22 has been helpful in pushing this forward. -- Talpedia ( talk) 16:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Merge templates don't go on the article talk pages. They go on the articles. So I've fixed that. Started an RfC below, like I stated (at WP:Med) that I would. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 07:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Should the Commitment (mental health) article be merged into the Involuntary commitment article? Should it be vice versa? Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 07:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Notes
I've alerted I will alert the WikiProjects this talk page is tagged with. As noted above,
WP:Med is already aware of this discussion; so there was no need to alert them to this RfC.
Flyer22 Frozen (
talk) 07:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I see that WP:PSYCHOLOGY was already alerted to this RfC. That WikiProject is barely active, though. It can be described as inactive, not just semi-inactive. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 07:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Please see WP:RFCNOT. There is an agreed process for proposed merges. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 20:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
{{
merge}}
(or similar templates) will put the article into
Category:Articles to be merged from September 2020 (or similar) and
Category:All articles to be merged. An {{
rfc}}
tag will not categorise either by reason (in this case, merge) or by date; besides which there have been too many recent cases where {{
rfc}}
has been used inappropriately, often for very minor matters. This is why we have {{
rfc}}
without a very good reason, it is you who has begun to EW. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 11:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Question( Summoned by bot), what I don't understand is how (voluntary) commitment is different from simply obtaining treatment for a mental condition. In the UK, 'being committed' refers usually to enforced treatment, but what do the voluntary and enforced commitment have in common ? Is it simply attendance at a place offering treatment for mental health? Pincrete ( talk) 09:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Is it relevant to this discussion that there's also articles on voluntary commitment and on outpatient commitment? I think the voluntary one at least is. There's also an article involuntary treatment, but that's for any medical involuntary treatment so that one at least isn't a complication. -- Xurizuri ( talk) 10:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey User:Sundayclose. I think this link might be more relevant than it at first seems from the name: this page discusses a form of indefinite outpatient commitment based on mental health rather than through the legal system. c.f.
"(1) That the person has been convicted of a sexually violent offense (a term that is defined applicable statutes) (2) That the person suffers from a mental abnormality and/or personality disorder, which causes him/her serious difficulty controlling his/her sexually violent behavior. (3) That this mental abnormality and/or personality disorder makes the person likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence if not confined in a secure facility."
I don't know if the page needs a better title. Talpedia ( talk) 00:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wrongful involuntary commitment was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 30 July 2020 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Involuntary commitment. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
The contents of the Commitment (mental health) page were merged into Involuntary commitment on 14 September 2021. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The contents of the Psychiatric imprisonment page were merged into Involuntary commitment on 21 June 2006. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
I added the POV tag as the entire section seemed to radiate the tell-a-tale signs of it.
My issues:
Anyone have any feedback before I edit? - Brother Dave Thompson 23:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite}}
tag for the paragraph on the Soviet Union. If someone is willing to find some solid evidence that this is true they should do so otherwise it will get removed in a few months.
Mundilfari (
talk) 08:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)You can not compare the issue of "homosexuality and adultery" to the issue of the so called "mental illness". When it comes to "homosexuality and adultery" it is an issue of civilization, and a civilized person keeps his head between his shoulders, not between his legs; some people simply have higher standards. Just look at the divorce rates and the lives of men and women in the countries that allow such rubbish. Women there live like toilets, from one man to the next (ofcourse every temporary period with a man is called love untill they "break" their relation). Anyways, it is an issue of values and tangible crime. Of course, calling homosexuality or adultery a "mental illness" is absolute rubbish. The issue of mental health on the other hand, is one where an officer can just detain you without breaking any law. When all else fails, when you have nothing against him, call him a witch or, as the "civilized people" put it, "mentally ill". This is incredible power that goes against our very nature; some complete stranger can threaten your freedom because he decided he can help you! He can not tell you what is your crime, all he says I am here to help you. If you fight back, it is a crime. If you run, it is a crime! This is very serious, and mostly serious to the homeless. -- 99.246.101.166 ( talk) 16:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Another thing I would like to point out in case it was not understood from what I previously wrote, is that with homosexuality and adultery, regardless of your views on them, you can provide real evidence whether they happened or not. A witness, a blood test, etc. With "mental illness" you can not. There is simply no objective proof that you are mentally ill. -- 99.246.101.166 ( talk) 16:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The contents of this article have been dealt with in a much more informative, neutral, and coherent manner in Involuntary commitment. I would advise that this article needed cleaning up, but the article itself is unnecessary. Therefore, I recommend that it be deleted in its entirety. IronDuke 22:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Added mention of controversy (from a civil-liberties perspective) over civil commitment.
Daniel C. Boyer
Added more text. One needs to make a distinction between psychiatric commitment and civil commitment. People have been arguing about psychiatric commitment since the 1960's, and that issue is well argued. Civil commitment for sex offenders is something entirely new.
Added mention of Lawerence Stevens as exception to "few would argue that under no circumstances should a psychiatric patient be held against their will".
Daniel C. Boyer
Added mention of ordering people to take psychiatric medication as an alternative to involuntary commitment and a cause for the decreased incidence of involuntary commitment.
Daniel C. Boyer
Added link to Lawrence Stevens article.
Daniel C. Boyer
Added parenthetical mention of "mad liberation."
Daniel C. Boyer
Added mention of nearly-synonymous "mental hygiene" laws.
Daniel C. Boyer
The "danger to self or others" standard of the Baker Act (paralleled in many other mental hygiene laws) is supposed to be protective of the civil liberties of those who might be wrongly committed, which is ridiculous as it is hardly a bright-line test and is indeed one of nearly infinitely open-ended ambiguity. The test is based on the assumption that it will be used in a certain way, but facially almost every individual could be called a "danger to self or others." Judge Watchler has pointed out (and I maintain this is putting it mildly) that "dangerousness" is "open to various interpretations" (Mtr. of Torsney, 47 N.Y. 2d 667, 686-87 (Ct. App. 1979)(Wachtler, J., dissenting).
Daniel C. Boyer
Might the mention of the Stevens article on suicide be better placed under the article on suicide? What is its relevance to this?
Daniel C. Boyer
I am concerned that the passage relating to the 1960s ("the involuntary commitment were lax and this led to a number of horror stories of people with no mental illness being trapped in an institution") might lead readers to believe this does not occur today when it can and does. Could this be reworked to relieve this possible misimpression?
Daniel C. Boyer
See here for a possible criticism of involuntary commitment. -- Daniel C. Boyer
"It is typically used against patients with mental illness, particularly schizophrenia."
"Unfortunately, community care facilities were in general not well-funded, and this resulted in many mental patients left to fend for themselves." This is not NPOV. Perhaps this should be rewritten to indicate that the flaw in the theory, when put into practice, was that "community care facilities were in general not well-funded" rather than using the word "unfortunately". -- Daniel C. Boyer
This entire article is U.S.-centric and revisions should be made to it to make it less so. -- Daniel C. Boyer 14:16 Oct 2, 2002 (UTC)
The practice of involuntary commitment does not necessarily violate the First Amendment (see anti-psychiatry), but it might. -- Daniel C. Boyer
I am puzzled by commitment of persons suffering from dementia (senile aswell as pre-senile) isn't focused in the article. That ought to be a pretty large group, also in USA. -- Johan Magnus 01:08 19 May 2003 (UTC)
Criticism that this article is U.S.-centric (with which I strongly agree) should be solved by adding info on the situation in other countries. -- Daniel C. Boyer 21:37, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Should this be mentioned and if so how should it be approached? -- Daniel C. Boyer 19:18, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
How in this article should the subject of halfway houses be dealt with? -- Daniel C. Boyer 19:53, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This article currently has no headings in the body of the text. These need to be inserted. As a psychiatrist reading this I find no mention of WHY psychiatrist use involuntary commitment. The article has a creeping POV that seems to imply that involuntary commitment is necessarily bad.
No mention is made of it being used in the absence of informed consent or the inability to obtain informed consent because of psychotic thinking. For instance, a severely depressed person may passively accept hospitalisation but be incapable of giving informed consent due to psychomotor retardation.
What is wrong with the word "for" instead of "against". Does "against" have a special legal meaning in this context?
This would be clearer as, "Most people would agree that there are circumstances when some psychiatric patients should be held without their consent, ..."
I presume you have removed the word "classic" from the description of Rosenhan's paper on POV grounds but I think it should be reinstated. Many papers are produced only to be read and forgotten. Some achieve the standard of being referenced many times and some achieve even more significance. These papers become seminal works that are read, referenced and respected as major achievements in the field. The contents of these papers are taught to all students of the field. This is what is usually understood by the term "classic paper", or at least in my experience. The qualifier "classic" thus imparts information and without this qualifier the impact of this paper on the field of psychiatry is less obvious. For instance, the title of the paper was in my memory when I wrote this section. I was then able to look it up on the internet and found 906 references on Google. By comparison "Outcome of schizophrenia: some transcultural observations with particular reference to developing countries" returns 146 sites. This is not a classic paper but falls into the middle of the groups I have mentioned. The main article on the Rosenhan experiment states, "The study is considered an important and influential criticism of psychiatric diagnosis." The SOED's first defintion for classic is "Of the first rank or authority; standard, leading." That is the meaning I intended. -- CloudSurfer 07:40, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
How should the controversial CCHR (with its connexion to Scientology) be brought up in this article? -- Daniel C.Boyer 18:54, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Is it true that Anyone may begin the commitment process by filing with the probate court an application alleging that someone has psychiatric disabilities and is dangerous to himself or others or gravely disabled. ? [1] Has anyone tried to use this to say that a politician (ie Bush) was insane by this method? You could propably prove that he is "Dangerous to himself or others "-- Guthrie 17:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
It is my belief that it is absolutely an indication of the horrific situation those involuntarily committed find themselves in if CCHR is the main practical source of the securing of any rights they are supposed to have, which evidently it may be in some major way. The Church of Scientology has its own skeletons of forced commitment of people using their own so called mental health treatment with sometimes deadly results. Beyond that the extreme position of an organization that thinks it is the answer to everyone's issues renders their participation less credible. But if they get a patient out from a situation in which rights of all kinds are in practice denied and the length of stay in such places is arbitrarily extended as it often is, it rightfully earns some respect for what it does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.228.245 ( talk) 23:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The topics on involuntary treatment are covered on this page; perhaps a merger? Andrew73 14:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Certainly in British Columbia patients can be treated involuntarily without a court proceeding. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
In many cases, "combative" patients are just trying to prevent psychiatric assault. Resistance is considered assault. And it's not only emergency situations -- such "treatment" can go on for months without a court proceeding. Being jumped by guards, thrown on the floor and injected is the very definition of forced drugging. I can't imagine wanting to dress it up as anything else. Once you're incarcerated on a psych ward, it's up to you to prove yourself sane. It's the complete opposite of the way it works in the criminal justice system. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 15:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Really? What if the only source of the "combat" is that the patient very much doesn't want to be treated? Is slamming people onto the floor and injecting them with neuroleptics still okay? Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 02:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The trouble is that it's impossible to correctly judge who poses a danger. And the standard of what constitutes danger varies wildly. "Only refusing treatment" gets many people locked up. Psychiatric treatment, especially in emergency situtations, is brutal and tends to escalate violence. We wouldn't allow convicted felons to be treated as poorly as we treat mental patients. Forced drugging is NEVER justifiable. It's a human rights violation that's got to stop. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I Oppose the merger as the two articles describe separate things. It is possible (although not necessarily legal) to be involuntarily detained/committed without being treated and involuntarily treated without being detained. The latter possibility is currently being discussed in the UK in revision of the Mental Health Act. The discussion above about the issue of human rights and involuntary treatment I believe qualifies this article for inclusion in category:medical ethics. -- Vincej 05:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, 24.55, perhaps you should try reading Vince's comments again as you appear to have completely misunderstood what he was saying. Any reason you must be so offensive? I support human rights in psychiatry. I am not a "fringe antipsychiatry advocate" nor a "scientologist" nor am I "plying any wares." Contrary to your self-serving delusion, you haven't been "eliminating nonsense POV" but just offensively and anonymously reverting various editors' useful input. Your edits are just as POV as the ones you attempt to "correct." As is evidenced on your talk page, your conduct has not gone unnoticed by wiki admin. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 02:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
If you read it, then it must be true. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
And now let's have that quote in its context:
So, 24.55, you're as dishonest as you are offensive. What a sweet moment! 24.55 hoist by his own petard! Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Once again, 24.55, you manage to completely miss the point. The article claims that MindFreedom is on the "fringe" but says nothing in support of that assertion. Indeed, NAMI's spokesperson can't either. MindFreedom is not an obscure group. They have consultative roster status with the United Nations. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 01:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Having read the article on Assisted Outpatient Commitment it seems to me that Outpatient Commitment is not the same as Involuntary Commitment and would fit better with the concept of Involuntary Treatment. However, these terms are unfamiliar to me as I am from the UK. May I suggest that we use terms that are more internationally understood to demonstrate these distinct concepts. -- Vincej 09:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Vincej, I agree. Outpatient commitment is just one form of many forms of involuntary treatment. Please elaborate on international terminology. It would be great if everybody knew what we were talking about. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 16:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Is this 1979 Supreme Court decision still relevant? If so, I think it should be cited in the article. Apokrif 16:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
If no objections I’ll merge the article not with Involuntary treatment, but with Psychiatric imprisonment. — Cesar Tort 22:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I have merged an edited article of Psychiatric Imprisonment into the new section “Totalitarian countries” [4] and also did some minor copyedits in main article. Since it’s a longer article now it ought not be merged with Involuntary treatment. — Cesar Tort 03:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Since electroconvulsive therapy is the mainstream term of use and since 'electroshock'
I have removed the 'also known as electroshock' part of the text under Treatment of illness
-- Sinus 14:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello Sinus, you indicated that electroshock "does not describe the intents and purposes of the procedure".
The problem is that "electroconvulsive therapy" indicates the procedure as a "therapy" which from its ancient greek roots "therapeuo" means "cure"
I do appreciate that you refferred to the "neutral point of view...", nonetheless, the question whether
-the procedure is used to cure, to reinstate the health of patients, or
-to shock the patient in order to handle s/he according to medical goals (which in the cases in question try to balance between the interests of the patient and those of the community)
which I suspect is a legitimate question, would be better left open using the term "electroshock"
I may be wrong but I feel that reinstating 'also known as electroshock' would better mirror the duplicity of goals sought by the "therapy".
Criticism and contrary viewpoints welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MauroUsai ( talk • contribs) 08:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I hope you will forgive me if I'm missing something obvious, but I was looking up involuntary commitment laws and came across both this article, and an article at About.com's "Ask the Experts" site, and aside from maybe some paragraph shuffling, they seem to be verbatim copies of each other. I'm wondering how that can be possible without someone either plagarizing Wikipedia or violating Wikipedia's terms. The about.com page is at: http://experts.about.com/e/i/in/involuntary_commitment.htm
Maybe it's nothing, but it seemed odd to me so I felt I should mention it. If this has been explained before I apologize for wasting bandwidth. If it is as odd as it seems to me, I'm curious to see what the verdict is.
MadRabbit 10:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It presents the point of view that involuntary commitment is bad. In reality, it is very hard (at least in the U.S.) to involuntarily commit someone. As a result, the large homeless population is composed of many mentally ill persons. I believe both points of view should be presented. -- Mattisse 22:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The way current section is written, it sounds like there is a public disagreement about the TBS-system. As a resident, I do not recognize this tone at all. True, there are problems and scandals from time to time, but from my experience, the public opinion is not as negative as it's expressed here. The section should me more neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.251.56.36 ( talk) 08:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
-- Your opinion is not to recognize this ? I'm a Dutch native and all the time there are discussions about the so called 'TBS system'. It’s inhumane, mentally abusive, torture like and so on... how does the Dutch society want the return of these help needing people? if they continue this way, they are putting a kettle on the furnish... Retrorick wikipedia talk 14:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
i need to know how to ack around a Psychiatrist. im not crazy but im scared. how do i talk sit or anything. i know that im not crazy its just that how would you feel if your parents were trying to commit you into something you didnt think that was right for you? im pretty sure you wouldnt. the reason they are considering this is because i dont listen to them. also i think its because they found out i smoke. i dont understand. how do i get help? thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.39.79.2 ( talk) 12:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
In the opening paragraph USA policy is mentioned in what appears to be a passing comment initially, but is then used to segue the entire opening paragraph into a description of US policy on involuntary commitment. This information should be in the USA section and the opening paragraph written from a more global perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.231.193 ( talk) 11:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
how useful is this category? are there also categories "treatment of..." depression, schizophrenia, etc etc. How many treatment related categories should be added? and commitment is not treatment, it is forcibly immobilizing or controlling someone so "treatment" can be administered, I think. EME44 ( talk) 07:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Civil confinement should be merged here as very similar notion. Another related article is SVP laws, but that should stay separate and be expanded because it's a US-specific set of laws, which would bias this article towards the US too much, and the SVP laws article has great potential for expansion (lots of reliable and detailed sources in External links). Tijfo098 ( talk) 18:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The parallel between detaining someone for mental illness and witch hunts should be noted, as already noted by others as can been seen around the web. In both cases you are detaining someone because you think there is something wrong with them, but you can not provide any proof. If the psychiatrist thinks you are mentally ill, you are mentally ill! The only hope for you, the patient, is to play a psychological game with the psychiatrist and hope you win.
Nowadays, if an officer wants to detain you and has nothing against you, or if someone you know has a grudge against you, he calls out witch, sorry, mentally ill (suicidal, a danger to others), and voilà, you can get detained for at least a couple of days. Compare this to witch hunts of the old. Even if you are "proved" to be "sane" and released after a couple of days, depending on your personality, you will never forget the humiliation of being treated like a criminal. As for the officer, or the person who knows you, they achieved their objective. They managed to humiliate you legally. If you are homeless, the issue goes far beyond humiliation, and ironically, this becomes the leading cause of your mental deterioration.
In short, the parallel between the two is the ability to detain someone without any proof of crime. -- 99.246.101.166 ( talk) 16:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
As a premiss, the subject of the article is of interest of many areas of knowledge ranging from Medicine, to Law, to Sociology, to Ethics etc.
The choice of the heading i.e. "Involuntary commitment" seems to accord a linguistic preference to legal definition.
I would wish to observe, however, that the subject matter of the article is by epistemological nature and by psychological research of a relational nature.
Thus the legal terminology leaves in the shadow the fact that in "involuntary commitment":
So there is a party willing to commit the other to compulsory hospitalisation (or treatment, or detention, or lobotomy, etc. as it may be the case)
There is another party forced into the action determined by other relevant agent(s)
On its face "Involuntary Commitment" is a very innocent expression.
I suspect it does not render justice to the brute reality of facts or to the true substance of the matter.
My suggestion is that an alternative heading should be considered. 92.41.29.213 ( talk) 09:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC) MauroUsai
Who pays for this in the US? In the UK it is free for anyone, even those who would not qualify for the NHS (for example, an American tourist returning from Africa and transiting London). Although emergency medical care is also free for everyone, once the patient is stabilized they need to start paying, but even compulsory outpatient psychiatric treatment is free in the UK 94.175.119.32 ( talk) 09:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
In this edit, somebody removed a few paragraphs about the involuntary commitment regimes in Arizona, Connecticut, Iowa, Michigan, Oregon, Nevada and Utah. I'll let others decide if that data is relevant enough for inclusion in this overview article. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 09:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Currently, this reads: "If civil commitment proceedings follow, the evaluation is presented in a formal court hearing where testimony and other evidence may also be submitted.[citation needed] The subject of the hearing is typically entitled to legal counsel and may challenge a commitment order through habeas corpus rules.[1]"
This may be accurate for certain American states but it's certainly not accurate for Canadian provinces. I'm in BC and there is no court hearing and patients aren't advised of their right to counsel. Patients are committed for an indeterminate length of time and then they have the option of appearing before the Review Board to try and negotiate their release. Could the article please state that regimes vary in different locations? E. Francesca Allan ( talk) 13:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Many people who are considered insane have a desire to travel, immigrate, or emigrate to another location. Upon release, it becomes a shady proposition. Such folks might be intimidated into believing that migration to another State or Country would result in deportation, imprisonment, or litigation with no recourse. Worse, there can be the idea that involuntary commitment will "follow" folks into a new city or State, and that there is not the option to start from a clean reputation, only to sully that reputation by going elsewhere and exposing authorities to charges and realities that existed somewhere else. Is there anyone who can provide legal expertise on this matter? 173.14.238.114 ( talk) 07:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
There is a link to Thomas Szasz on here. What about a section about his views of civil commitment? He was probably the loudest voice against civil commitment and psychiatric oppression. Michael Ten ( talk) 06:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey, normally you can challenge stuff by adding citation needed tags but anyway. The citations (and sentence they were citing) are only true in the US, not other countries, I was in the process of finding where this could fit into the article (since I felt a discussion on the internaional variation in commitment standards did not fit in the lead).
Anyway, I'll do all the edits in one go and if you then look at the article and tell me - which bits are untrue or what you would like to be changed (or make the edits yourself... unless you want to completely remove the material in which case we might need more of a discussion).
-- Talpedia ( talk) 16:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I hope this isn't off topic or too wordy. I think it's difficult for readers to know what "more violent" means without some context, and I think presenting both the 1.3-1.8 figure or the 4-8 figure on their own would be to hide some controversy in the research.
-- Talpedia ( talk) 23:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I propose that we merge Commitment_(mental_health) into this article because they seem to cover the same topic. The other article is to do with the history of commitment and the history if its criticism, so an alternative would be to rename this article to the history. I have spoken about this topic on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Merging_of_commitment_with_involuntary_commitment, and wrote about it on Talk:Commitment_(mental_health) @ Fgnievinski: suggested that this page be merged into the other page. @ Ozzie10aaaa: expressed some doubts because both articles were quite long. @ Flyer22 Frozen: said she felt that in the event of a merge this page should remain citing WP:Common name. I agree because the other page is relatively new while this page has more of a history and more people watching the page. Flyer22 Frozen suggested pinging @ Sundayclose:. I have just added merger proposal banners to both talk pages now. Flyer22 has been helpful in pushing this forward. -- Talpedia ( talk) 16:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Merge templates don't go on the article talk pages. They go on the articles. So I've fixed that. Started an RfC below, like I stated (at WP:Med) that I would. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 07:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Should the Commitment (mental health) article be merged into the Involuntary commitment article? Should it be vice versa? Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 07:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Notes
I've alerted I will alert the WikiProjects this talk page is tagged with. As noted above,
WP:Med is already aware of this discussion; so there was no need to alert them to this RfC.
Flyer22 Frozen (
talk) 07:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I see that WP:PSYCHOLOGY was already alerted to this RfC. That WikiProject is barely active, though. It can be described as inactive, not just semi-inactive. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 07:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Please see WP:RFCNOT. There is an agreed process for proposed merges. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 20:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
{{
merge}}
(or similar templates) will put the article into
Category:Articles to be merged from September 2020 (or similar) and
Category:All articles to be merged. An {{
rfc}}
tag will not categorise either by reason (in this case, merge) or by date; besides which there have been too many recent cases where {{
rfc}}
has been used inappropriately, often for very minor matters. This is why we have {{
rfc}}
without a very good reason, it is you who has begun to EW. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 11:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Question( Summoned by bot), what I don't understand is how (voluntary) commitment is different from simply obtaining treatment for a mental condition. In the UK, 'being committed' refers usually to enforced treatment, but what do the voluntary and enforced commitment have in common ? Is it simply attendance at a place offering treatment for mental health? Pincrete ( talk) 09:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Is it relevant to this discussion that there's also articles on voluntary commitment and on outpatient commitment? I think the voluntary one at least is. There's also an article involuntary treatment, but that's for any medical involuntary treatment so that one at least isn't a complication. -- Xurizuri ( talk) 10:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey User:Sundayclose. I think this link might be more relevant than it at first seems from the name: this page discusses a form of indefinite outpatient commitment based on mental health rather than through the legal system. c.f.
"(1) That the person has been convicted of a sexually violent offense (a term that is defined applicable statutes) (2) That the person suffers from a mental abnormality and/or personality disorder, which causes him/her serious difficulty controlling his/her sexually violent behavior. (3) That this mental abnormality and/or personality disorder makes the person likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence if not confined in a secure facility."
I don't know if the page needs a better title. Talpedia ( talk) 00:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)