Should Medical Treatment Be Forced?

Started by Nihilego May 8th, 2011 4:27 AM
  • 917 views
  • 14 replies

Nihilego

[color=#95b4d4]ユービーゼロイチ パラサイト[/color]

Male
scotland
Seen September 28th, 2018
Posted March 16th, 2018
8,874 posts
12.1 Years
See title. In any situation at all, from the common cold, to depression, to life-threatening or crippling illnesses, do you think that people should always receive medical attention, or should they have a right to deny it at any point?

Before you post, I think it's worth considering, on the more serious end of things and in cases of depression, if an individual is able to make an informed decision about what they want to do with their life. On the other hand, though, are they still informed enough regardless to make that decision? How do you know if they are not emotionally stable enough to decide to deny medical treatment or not?

Discuss.
s͎̭̚ ̪ͭͩy͔͚̰̻̗̩̺ͣ́ͨ̌͡ ̩̳̙̖̖̺͡m̷̱̘͎̝̘̣͒͌͒̚ ͇͖̔̐̔b̝̪͚̞̦ͬ ̢͔̱̟̞̝͙̮͌̅̈̓̿̿i͐̈̃͊ͯ̎҉̟̠͓ ͕̥̣̪̠̃͑͞ỏ̵͕̠̱̬̬̞͛̋ ̨͈̻̱̟̱͓̪n͒̒͂͊̀ ̻̰̰̜̅̃͒̂͞tͭ̍̈́ ͙͇̘͕͍̜̖ͫ̌̊̿ͫ̂̀:̵̾͒̔͂ ̟͉̜̽͒͌͜p͎͇͎̦̺̙͒͆͋́ͅ ̨̠̠̘͚͖̺ͫ͛̎̉a̲͍̫͖͗̄ ͓͖͍̯̤̼͙̿̆̂̂̄r̬̟̮͖̥̼̆̓͑̃̾ͬ̉͟ͅ ̬̼̗͊͛a̛̯̮ ̮̬͍̙̮̤́ͪŝ͊ͬ̒̎̃ ̧̝̮͎͙͆̓ì͈̹̻̱̾͝ ̘͉͕̭̊ͤ̉̓tͩͯ̉̐ͨͬ̚͏̻̺̖̮ ̞̘͂̋̋ͯ͑ͦ͗e̞͔̎̇ͫ͊͗

Shining Raichu

Expect me like you expect Jesus.

Age 32
Male
Australia
Seen October 17th, 2020
Posted December 21st, 2017
8,958 posts
12.3 Years
Absolutely not. I'm always in the "nothing should be forced on us" camp, and this situation is no different. The government has no right to force us into anything against our wishes.

However, as you said, it becomes a grayer area when the patient is unable to make informed decisions for him or herself - in that instance, I think the protocol as we have it is appropriate - having a designated person make the decision for them. I can't see another way to work that situation.
Moderator of General Chat

Charizard★

Age 28
Female
Seen January 28th, 2019
Posted November 13th, 2018
13,369 posts
13.8 Years
No, they shouldn't be forced to take medications of receive help in any way. It's 100% their choice to what they want to do and they have their own rights. If it's someone handicapped/mental illness then that would be an exception I suppose, but for others, it should be their choice to what they want to do in life.


ShinyMeowth

Gone forever

Age 26
Male
Greece
Seen March 23rd, 2012
Posted May 14th, 2011
397 posts
12.4 Years
People should be allowed to choose if they want to live or die. Your point is valid, so an exception would have to be made for mentally unstable people.

Shiny ★ Meowth

Nihilego

[color=#95b4d4]ユービーゼロイチ パラサイト[/color]

Male
scotland
Seen September 28th, 2018
Posted March 16th, 2018
8,874 posts
12.1 Years
Then what defines too mentally unstable to make the choice? Who would make the choice and what if the person was genuinely stable enough to make the choice themselves, but they weren't believed?
s͎̭̚ ̪ͭͩy͔͚̰̻̗̩̺ͣ́ͨ̌͡ ̩̳̙̖̖̺͡m̷̱̘͎̝̘̣͒͌͒̚ ͇͖̔̐̔b̝̪͚̞̦ͬ ̢͔̱̟̞̝͙̮͌̅̈̓̿̿i͐̈̃͊ͯ̎҉̟̠͓ ͕̥̣̪̠̃͑͞ỏ̵͕̠̱̬̬̞͛̋ ̨͈̻̱̟̱͓̪n͒̒͂͊̀ ̻̰̰̜̅̃͒̂͞tͭ̍̈́ ͙͇̘͕͍̜̖ͫ̌̊̿ͫ̂̀:̵̾͒̔͂ ̟͉̜̽͒͌͜p͎͇͎̦̺̙͒͆͋́ͅ ̨̠̠̘͚͖̺ͫ͛̎̉a̲͍̫͖͗̄ ͓͖͍̯̤̼͙̿̆̂̂̄r̬̟̮͖̥̼̆̓͑̃̾ͬ̉͟ͅ ̬̼̗͊͛a̛̯̮ ̮̬͍̙̮̤́ͪŝ͊ͬ̒̎̃ ̧̝̮͎͙͆̓ì͈̹̻̱̾͝ ̘͉͕̭̊ͤ̉̓tͩͯ̉̐ͨͬ̚͏̻̺̖̮ ̞̘͂̋̋ͯ͑ͦ͗e̞͔̎̇ͫ͊͗

Esper

California
Seen June 30th, 2018
Posted June 30th, 2018
If someone has something contagious then, yes, for the sake of everyone they might infect they have to be treated whether they want to be or not. For something smaller like a cold it's not as dire, but even that can be deadly to some people if they have a weak immune system so the point is still valid. Of course, treatment might not always be possible so the next best thing is to keep yourself away from anyone you might infect (so anyone who isn't already infected or hasn't recently been infected and built up a resistance). I personally hate seeing sick people in public spreading their germs around, sneezing into their hands and touching doors and everything like that. I'm not saying I want all sick people locked away, but I want people to be more thoughtful about what they do when they're sick.

With depression, when it's properly diagnosed, people should at least have to try some kind of treatment. Depression is an imbalance in your brain, but some of the effects of different medications can be pretty awful so I wouldn't absolutely impose on someone a treatment that might be worse than the illness. Talking to a therapist or something like that ought to be mandatory, but then you won't really know if someone is clinically depressed unless they talk to a professional.

Then what defines too mentally unstable to make the choice? Who would make the choice and what if the person was genuinely stable enough to make the choice themselves, but they weren't believed?
I don't know what is "too mentally unstable". I'm sure there are plenty of professional opinions on that topic so I'd probably go with what they say, generally, although my own view is that a person who refuses to get help without a good reason is probably already being unreasonable and that's probably not too far from being unstable. Just my opinion though.

Gulpin

poisonous

Male
Seen January 16th, 2017
Posted November 25th, 2016
3,270 posts
16.7 Years
I think medical treatment should be forced only in the event that it will help the health of the society in general. For example, if it is a vaccination for an illness it should be forced so that the illness would eventually become nonexistant in the society. Polio used to be rampant in the United States, but since the younger generations during that time were forced to get a vaccine, polio is now extremely rare and only comes from third world countries. I think that any widespread illness should be treated to prevent it from spreading and hurting other people.

On the other hand, I think that it is up to the patient to choose for any illness that will only effect them in the long run such as heart surgery or diabetes. If someone doesn't get a heart surgery that they need, it wont cause other people to catch the problem and will only effect the person who needs the surgery.

If someone is being treated for any mental illness and they have the slightest chance of not being able to make their own decisions due to being depressed or something similar, it should be up to a relative or if no relatives are able, their doctor.The reason for this is because people with mental illnesses can't make their own decisions. My sister and dad are bipolar, and if they had refused treatment it would've caused many problems. My sister was manic before she was treated and she was in a state where she felt invincible and wouldn't need treatment, but now that she is treated she realises that she needs her medications which she wouldn't have while she is manic. I would've hated if she had been older an by herself and be manic and untreated and refuse treatment and end up hurting herself or other people.
< < < I know you want these lumps

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
They do have the right to deny medical treatment. In America, where they would be held financially liable for such treatment, they should be able to deny it.

Consider this quote from the Supreme Court:
"No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his or her own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestioned authority of law."

Melody

Banned

Female
Cuddling those close to me
Seen March 4th, 2018
Posted March 2nd, 2018
6,459 posts
18.6 Years
I think that treatment should be forced,IF AND ONLY IF the person is not mentally stable, and is deemed by a doctor to be mentally unfit to make their own medical decisions.

However, they should not be held financially responsible for anything forced on them, and such treatment should only be to keep them alive and return them to an acceptable state of mind so they can resume making their own decisions.
Of course, this kind of forced treatment can be mitigated by signifying such a thing when they're mentally whole. Kind of like an organ donor card, you can have in your wallet that says you're not to be kept alive or forced into treatments you object to.

I agree that family can be consulted for treatment options but they shouldn't be allowed to make any calls outside of that.

Once you're treated and healthy again, You shouldn't need to pay for treatment you didn't personally elect to have, which immediate family members didn't approve.

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
I think that treatment should be forced,IF AND ONLY IF the person is not mentally stable, and is deemed by a doctor to be mentally unfit to make their own medical decisions.

However, they should not be held financially responsible for anything forced on them, and such treatment should only be to keep them alive and return them to an acceptable state of mind so they can resume making their own decisions.
Of course, this kind of forced treatment can be mitigated by signifying such a thing when they're mentally whole. Kind of like an organ donor card, you can have in your wallet that says you're not to be kept alive or forced into treatments you object to.

I agree that family can be consulted for treatment options but they shouldn't be allowed to make any calls outside of that.

Once you're treated and healthy again, You shouldn't need to pay for treatment you didn't personally elect to have, which immediate family members didn't approve.
So you support such an insult to human liberty and dignity as forced medication? Would you also support forcibly locking people up in insane asylums for indefinite periods of times due to no fault of their own?

This is an obvious Due Process violation. That person at least deserves their day in court to determine whether or not they are a danger to others proven by clear and convincing evidence before they can be forcibly treated. This a matter that needs to be determined by a court of law to ensure that people's rights are protected, and the standard needs to be a danger to others, not merely mentally unfit to make their own medical decisions.

Oryx

CoquettishCat

Age 30
Female
Seen January 30th, 2015
Posted December 27th, 2014
13,184 posts
12.2 Years
So you support such an insult to human liberty and dignity as forced medication? Would you also support forcibly locking people up in insane asylums for indefinite periods of times due to no fault of their own?

This is an obvious Due Process violation. That person at least deserves their day in court to determine whether or not they are a danger to others proven by clear and convincing evidence before they can be forcibly treated. This a matter that needs to be determined by a court of law to ensure that people's rights are protected, and the standard needs to be a danger to others, not merely mentally unfit to make their own medical decisions.
So if they have bouts of depression in which they attempt suicide, but when they're in their right mind don't want to die, they shouldn't be forced to medicate when they're suicidal? That doesn't make much sense to me. Just like mental instability can cause harm to others that the unstable person didn't intend, it can also cause harm to themselves that they don't intend. For example, a manic person (using your example deku, hope you don't mind and you can probably expand on this) may feel like using drugs is completely fine, while if they were in their right mind they would realize that they don't want to do drugs or deal with the following addiction. The options here are:

A. Force on them the medication, and let them make the decision to take it in the future after they have regained their right mind
B. Allow them to go without the medication and watch them do increasingly reckless things, very likely ending in serious injury or death

I can't say whether it should be a doctor deciding or a court, but either way, harm to oneself should be taken into consideration as well as harm to others.


Theme * Pair * VM * PM

Not all men...

Are all men stupid?

That's right.

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years


So if they have bouts of depression in which they attempt suicide, but when they're in their right mind don't want to die, they shouldn't be forced to medicate when they're suicidal? That doesn't make much sense to me. Just like mental instability can cause harm to others that the unstable person didn't intend, it can also cause harm to themselves that they don't intend. For example, a manic person (using your example deku, hope you don't mind and you can probably expand on this) may feel like using drugs is completely fine, while if they were in their right mind they would realize that they don't want to do drugs or deal with the following addiction. The options here are:

A. Force on them the medication, and let them make the decision to take it in the future after they have regained their right mind
B. Allow them to go without the medication and watch them do increasingly reckless things, very likely ending in serious injury or death

I can't say whether it should be a doctor deciding or a court, but either way, harm to oneself should be taken into consideration as well as harm to others.
If the person has any sort of mental capacity to voluntarily use drugs or commit suicide, their personal decisions on what to do with their own bodies and their own lives should not be infringed on. In other cases, a court of law can grant custody of the mentally handicapped person to a caretaker, who can then make medical decisions for them granted that the scope of that custody is the least restrictive means necessary to protect the person's well-being. The least restrictive means necessary concept is what we need to have in place. These are legal questions that a doctor cannot decide. They would merely be an expert witness in any court proceedings.

Oryx

CoquettishCat

Age 30
Female
Seen January 30th, 2015
Posted December 27th, 2014
13,184 posts
12.2 Years
If the person has any sort of mental capacity to voluntarily use drugs or commit suicide, their personal decisions on what to do with their own bodies and their own lives should not be infringed on. In other cases, a court of law can grant custody of the mentally handicapped person to a caretaker, who can then make medical decisions for them granted that the scope of that custody is the least restrictive means necessary to protect the person's well-being. The least restrictive means necessary concept is what we need to have in place. These are legal questions that a doctor cannot decide. They would merely be an expert witness in any court proceedings.
I guess that's where we disagree and we won't be able to change each others' opinions then. I believe that unless, while in their right mind, a person acknowledges the risks of their condition and chooses not to take medication for it although they may harm themselves, they should be medicated until they're stable enough to make the final decision for themselves. If, at that time, they tell the doctors that they no longer want the medication, then unless they're a harm to others they should be given that freedom. But beforehand, when they can't comprehend the full consequences of what they're doing, they shouldn't be left free to destroy their bodies until they come back into their right mind (if ever) and realize that it's not what they want.

As far as physical injuries, I believe that if a person is mentally stable, then they have every right to choose whether they want to be treated for something or not. However, it's a bit more shady when it comes to mental illnesses, for the reasons stated above.


Theme * Pair * VM * PM

Not all men...

Are all men stupid?

That's right.

aruchan

I resent the title beginner :D

Female
Seen October 30th, 2011
Posted October 2nd, 2011
226 posts
12.3 Years
Forcing someone to take medical treatment against their will contravenes the Hippocratic Oath, and is rather immoral. While a line of a distinction could be drawn for conditions where they pose a harm to themselves or others-i.e. pandemic quarantine or psychotic behaviors I support involuntary treatment-treating them without their own consent cannot be justified. The point of medicine is to help people, not prolong their suffering.

However, suicide due to depression is extremely problematic, medically and morally. Depression is caused by an imbalance of serotonin in the brain, and medicines like Prozac and Paxil could help them, in combination with behavioral and cognitive therapy. With these two aids, depression from no external force could be treated; however, depression resulting from catastrophic traumas or a painful terminal illness can be justified. If there is no other way to help them other than cause them more pain and harm, even a mental disorder should be left to lie.

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years


I guess that's where we disagree and we won't be able to change each others' opinions then. I believe that unless, while in their right mind, a person acknowledges the risks of their condition and chooses not to take medication for it although they may harm themselves, they should be medicated until they're stable enough to make the final decision for themselves. If, at that time, they tell the doctors that they no longer want the medication, then unless they're a harm to others they should be given that freedom. But beforehand, when they can't comprehend the full consequences of what they're doing, they shouldn't be left free to destroy their bodies until they come back into their right mind (if ever) and realize that it's not what they want.

As far as physical injuries, I believe that if a person is mentally stable, then they have every right to choose whether they want to be treated for something or not. However, it's a bit more shady when it comes to mental illnesses, for the reasons stated above.
Interesting argument. You've swayed me. If someone is that much of a danger to themselves, they should be medicated granted that their due process rights are respected in a court of law.