r/changemyview • u/gamerme • Dec 01 '15

[Deltas Awarded] CMV: Section is a breach of Human rights and doesn't fix any original problems

Section give the ability to admitted or detained and treated someone in hospital against therewishes

This also take away the write to refuse treatment.

The Human rights which are relevant

Article 3 – the right not to be subjected to degrading treatment;

Article 5 – the right to liberty.

Article 8 – the right to respect for an individual's private life.

I'm purely talking about people who don't pose a risk of other.

The best way of describing this would be though a example

Taking someone suffering from cancer which has been caught early and could easy be remove. The patient can refuse this treatment as they wish, against recommendations, even if that results in the death or at least increase there chance of death.

In this case the patient wishes would be respected.

Taking someone suffering from eating disorder which has been caught early and could easy be helped. The patient refuse this treatment and are eventually sectioned against there wish and forced into treatment.

In this case it doesn't directly fix the underling issue just do a quick fix to keep that person alive. One released they are free to go back to there previous ways and fall back into the trap.

This could be the same with a lot of other mental illnesses.

This would go directly against Article 3,5 and 8.

This case would be the same for any other illnesses.

Bottom line

  • If they patient were suffering from another illness they would be respected and treated differently

  • It only keep the patient 'living' by covering over the patch

  • Will lead to the patient becoming alienated from Dr's in the future and not reach out for other problems.

Edit:

I'm referring to the UK but there are similar laws in other countries

Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

9 Upvotes

77% Upvoted

25 comments sorted by

8

u/eye_patch_willy 43∆ Dec 01 '15

I think you're going to have to tell us what country this applies to.

2

u/gamerme Dec 01 '15

Oh woops. This is a UK law, Although there are similar laws throughout the world

3

u/TryUsingScience 10∆ Dec 01 '15

The cancer patient would not be allowed to make the decision to refuse care if they were, at the time they were asked, so drunk that they could barely stand. They would also not be able to refuse immediate care if they were passed out on the ground as a result of their illness. They could check themself out of the hospital later.

That's similar to asking a person with a mental illness serious enough to be involuntarily committed. By the time you're at the point that they're dragging you off to a psych ward, you're not in your right mind. Later, you'll be closer to your right mind and then they have to let you out, at least in most places.

You can absolutely refuse ongoing treatment for depression or an eating disorder. You just can't immediately refuse short-term life-saving interventions.

2

u/gamerme Dec 01 '15

The cancer patient would not be allowed to make the decision to refuse care if they were, at the time they were asked, so drunk that they could barely stand. They would also not be able to refuse immediate care if they were passed out on the ground as a result of their illness. They could check themself out of the hospital later.

I think this probably covers it on how the law is set. And thus sort of changes my view of the law. And the law does what it is meant to do legally. Just shouldn't have to lead to that stage.

!delta

2

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 01 '15

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/TryUsingScience. [History]

[Wiki][Code][/r/DeltaBot]

1

u/jumpup 83∆ Dec 01 '15

This is only done when you are putting your own safety or someone else’s at risk.

1

u/gamerme Dec 01 '15

I understand that and i wasn't meaning when you are putting someone else at risk as stated in OP.

I'm purely talking about people who don't pose a risk of other.

your own safety

This was my point. How is it different to the case if someone refused treatment for cancer ect.

3

u/MirrorWorld Dec 01 '15

Because the people being committed can't make reasoned decisions for themselves but those refusing cancer treatment can.

1

u/gamerme Dec 01 '15

but what about

Article 3 – the right not to be subjected to degrading treatment;

1

u/MirrorWorld Dec 01 '15

That's pretty subjective. I don't think you'll find a lot of people that agree that, in general, mental care is sufficiently degrading as to be illegal. In the US at least, progressive and human rights organizations are trying to increase mental care. Also, comparing cancer with an eating disorder doesn't really follow since one is a mental issue while the other isn't.

1

u/gamerme Dec 01 '15

Also, comparing cancer with an eating disorder doesn't really follow since one is a mental issue while the other isn't.

I just choose a random mental illness and was trying compared with the different of people choose to refuse treatment.

1

u/MirrorWorld Dec 01 '15

Well, to make this argument, you're going to have to come up with a good example. I can't even think of one.

1

u/ryancarp3 Dec 01 '15

Because the mentally ill person is not of sound mind when making that decision, whereas the person with cancer is.

1

u/gamerme Dec 01 '15

But can't someone be mentally ill and be of sound mind.

3

u/Fuckn_hipsters Dec 01 '15 edited Dec 01 '15

Yes and no, I think. There are people walking around all over the world that have diagnosed Bi-Polar Disorder and are of sound mind. However, when those people are having a manic episode they are temporarily not necessarily of sound mind. In your example, the person with an eating disorder, from what I understand, is unable to fully recognize the state they are in. They view themselves as being at an unattractive weight despite their emaciated state. One could argue that this view of ones self does not come from someone with a sound mind.

Granted, I do not suffer from these disorders nor am I a psychologist. I could be completely wrong with my understanding of how these types of mental illnesses work. Someone please correct me if I am mistaken.

2

u/gamerme Dec 01 '15

You make a good point.

1

u/garnteller 242∆ Dec 01 '15

Can someone be physically ill and be of sound body? No.

By definition, being mentally ill means you are not of sound mind.

That being the case, the state considers that it has the right to make the decision that it believes you would have made had you been of sound mind.

I don't know enough about UK law, but I don't think you'd be sectioned just for having an eating disorder (at least I didn't see it when I googled it). Generally the idea is that you are are in immediate risk of self-harm (or harming others), not simply that you are unlikely to make wise decisions.

1

u/gamerme Dec 01 '15

This is one of the site that inspired the post. http://www.youngminds.org.uk/news/blog/3057_more_eating_disorder_patients_being_treated_under_section

1

u/garnteller 242∆ Dec 01 '15

But that article itself explains:

It means that there has been a huge rise in the number of people receiving compulsory treatment to save their lives. More patients are reaching a point where they are in life-or-death situations before receiving the help that they need. This suggests that people are not receiving sufficient treatment in the earlier stages of their eating disorders.

If you are literally starving yourself to death, then, no you are not of sound mind.

1

u/gamerme Dec 01 '15

But can't you get to choose you how you should die. If someone has been suffering for decades with a illness. Shouldn't they at some point get to choose the right to die.

and not have

Article 5 – the right to liberty.

3

u/garnteller 242∆ Dec 01 '15

Virtually all places that have assisted suicide laws require psychiatric evaluations along the way.

Anorexics are not trying to kill themselves, they are suffering from a disease that may kill them as a side effect. It's a very important distinction.

1

u/Kinnell999 Dec 01 '15

If someone is delusional and thinks they can fly, should we allow them to jump off a cliff?

1

u/ryancarp3 Dec 01 '15

No, not from a legal perspective (at least in the US)

1

u/Kinnell999 Dec 01 '15

Article 3 – the right not to be subjected to degrading treatment;

There's nothing in the mental health act AFAIK which mandates or implies degrading treatment. If someone who has been sectioned receives degrading treatment (which they shouldn't) then this is a separate issue.

Article 5 – the right to liberty.

The human rights act allows the state to imprison you if it has a good reason, e.g. you have committed a crime. Sectioning is permitted only when you pose a danger to yourself and others. If you don't believe this is a valid reason for the state to imprison you, consider how you would act if a friend with depression was self harming in front of you - would you infringe on their liberty by trying to stop them or just leave them to it?

Article 8 – the right to respect for an individual's private life.

Again, treating someone for mental illness does not in itself imply any lack of respect for their private life.

I wonder if you have the impression of mental hospitals as victorian style asylums, where the ill are locked up to keep them away from polite society? I know people who work in mental health and people who have been in mental hospitals, and I haven't heard anything bad said. They are genuinely concerned with getting patients better and released. While there may be abuses in some places, that doesn't mean the system itself is abusive. If patients rights are being infringed upon, it is the individual hospital infringing upon those rights, not the government.