Psycho-Babble Social | for general support | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: Scientology

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) 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?)




Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post

Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.


Start a new thread

Google www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Social | Framed

poster:mrtook thread:951392