NationStates Jolt Archive

(this is concerning the Virginia Tech Massacre) I believe that it was NBC or Fox News that said this... but they brought up the question is it ok for a person with mental problems to avoid taking medication for their problems just by saying that they don't want to? Discuss...

No.

Poll please? Something like

1. Yes
2. No
3. I'm off my meds right now

would do ;)

If they are a danger to others, no, it is morally unacceptable.

If they aren't, that is their choice.

Yes, people should have a right to refuse medication, but only if it is clear that they will not cause harm to others if they are unmedicated. If they need meds to keep from violent or harmful behaviours, the meds should be compulsory. It's also reasonable to believe that a person who is severely ill wouldn't be in a proper position to judge whether the meds were any good. I guess a few doctors should judge and determine two things: the risk to society of not being medicated, and the lucidity/decision making abilities of the person choosing if they want the drugs.

Some of the meds, I believe, have pretty severe side effects so some people decide that they would rather be crazy.

This is fine as long as they are the non dangerous crazy I suppose. But the dangerous crazy should be made to take them if they want to live outside of insane asylums. (Of course if they like living in the crazy house, I suppose there is no reason to make them take the drugs either).

If it is going into their bodies it is their choice, however in not taking the meds they are taking responsibility for anything they do and their problems are no longer an excuse for their behavour if they fuck up.

There is a big tendacy in this country to try to take the easiest solution to any problem. In the case of mental or emotional disorders this often manifests itself in a pharmacutical approach rather than a theraputic one. A person should have the option as to wether or not they have their personal chemistry altered or not.

There of course should be and already are exceptions. A court can order someone to take a medication if it is determined that without it that person is a danger to himself or others. Then they are breaking the law if they don't comply. No such order existed for the VT shooter.

Where there is a clear and undisputed behaviour disturbance, that may lead to others suffering harm, then medication could, conceivably, be compulsory. This however opens the door to political abuse.

Go watch the film Serenity, and then try to argue that medication to prevent violence or aggressive behaviour is acceptable.

the family of my ex-flatmate allow him to take time off his medication at weekends so he can drink despite the fact that drink makes him worse and he has aready severely beaten both his mum and his little brother. so no, dangerous mental patients are on medication for a reason so they must take it.

(this is concerning the Virginia Tech Massacre) I believe that it was NBC or Fox News that said this... but they brought up the question is it ok for a person with mental problems to avoid taking medication for their problems just by saying that they don't want to? Discuss...Yes, of course. If you get medication for your throat and you don't take it, it's your decision alone. The same applies to all other medication. It's your body so it's your decision.

Yes, of course. If you get medication for your throat and you don't take it, it's your decision alone. The same applies to all other medication. It's your body so it's your decision.

As should be the consequences of that decision.

As an advocate of retroactive abortion, I say it is up to the individual whether or not to take meds. But your Mom may have something to say about it ;)

Depends on the situation.

If they're the standard tinfoil-hat, Zionist conspiracy fearing whack jobs, and they haven't hurt anybody, they can do what they like.

If they've been stockpiling a fuckton of arms and ammunition for the New World Order and they're violent and likely to hurt somebody, then that's what we have mental institutions for where they can be medicated and counseled.

Every time I see the OP's name, I think it's my evil twin. Freaky.

Every time I see the OP's name, I think it's my evil twin. Freaky.
Ditto

got to look twice now to see which person it is
Bit like trying to understand what you are saying, aye?:P

Every time I see the OP's name, I think it's my evil twin. Freaky.

got to look twice now to see which person it is

got to look twice now to see which person it is

It also freaks me out, because it's how you pronounce neechi, when talking rapidly...which means 'friend' in Cree.

It depends. Some psychiatric meds have side effects even more fucked up then the problem they're supposed to fix.

Bit like trying to understand what you are saying, aye?:P

go on say fish and chips :p
oh good to see you too

It also freaks me out, because it's how you pronounce neechi, when talking rapidly...which means 'friend' in Cree.

that is something new to me
but i know how you feel because if i say back off too fast it sounds like i said f off an i end up in hot water

that's kinda cool... friend in cree... anywho, the news broadcast was talking about ppl who were in danger of harming someone.

that's kinda cool... friend in cree... anywho, the news broadcast was talking about ppl who were in danger of harming someone.As was stated in an earlier post, it is possible for a court to order someone to take a medication, but it is rarely done and then usually only in the case of those that have already been convivted of a crime as a condition of parole or probation.

It's a slippery slope that most courts don't want to start down. We're talking about forcing a chemistry change upon someone, altering their 'natural' thinking process. Many psychoactive drugs have side effects that are easily argued as 'cruel and unusual' by any competent attorney.

If they are a danger to others, no, it is morally unacceptable.

If they aren't, that is their choice.

This is the most logical and ethical answer...that is a rare occasion.

No we should not be able to force mind altering drugs on someone because we have deemd their state of mind to be "wrong"...but if their state of mind is dangerous, then clearly they should be forced to be medicated, AND treated. They should, like all patients be allowed to participate in the treatment and have an active voice in the course of the treatment, but they should not be allowed to be dangerous, or at least to a reasonable extent we should attempt to prevent them from being dangerous.

While I realize this infringes on the individuals rights...and I personally in almost every instance hold the rights of the invidual to be the most important rights, in this instance they are not. Making sure a person in a wheel chair has access to the poles even if it means the majority pay high taxes for a service they will never use--fair.

Protecting someone from being forced to take medicine that will very liekly stop a violent out burst---bullshit.

I agree it should be there choice about taking the meds, and what types of meds they take. But they should also be accountable for any actions caused by their refusing the meds.

Every time I see the OP's name, I think it's my evil twin. Freaky.

First few times I saw it I actually misread it and thought it was you.

First few times I saw it I actually misread it and thought it was you.

I wondered if she had a puppet or something... and then figured Nees wasn't a puppet-type gal.

The problem with mental health issues is they have to be done by a case by case basis - No two are exactly the same

go on say fish and chips :p
oh good to see you too
ROFLZOMG STUPID AUSTRALIAN LIES.

Say Six for me.
Freaks.

Every time I see the OP's name, I think it's my evil twin. Freaky.

Hang on, so you're the good twin? :eek:






:fluffle:

(this is concerning the Virginia Tech Massacre)

:rolleyes:

Oh, get over it already, people. It's so last week.

:rolleyes:

Oh, get over it already, people. It's so last week.

Has 9/11 taught you nothing? It'll be months at the very least before this dies down.

Has 9/11 taught you nothing? It'll be months at the very least before this dies down.

1. It's "11/9" because it happened on the 11th of September and not the 9th of November.
2. My ocular muscles will thus see even more exercise. It'll be tough, but I think they'll manage with a few eye drops here or there.

1. It's "11/9" because it happened on the 11th of September and not the 9th of November.
lol i can't stand that dating system for exactly that kind of reason.

it's a hard question...I take "psych meds" because I have severe chemical depression. No amount of counseling will "fix" what's wrong with me. My brain doesn't produce or process seretonin correctly. I see it as no different from a diabetic taking insulin.

Do I think someone should be forced to do it...I don't know. I don't want to be the person in the grocery store, post office, train station, etc that gets killed when an unmedicated schizophrenic has a psychotic break and open fires. I know quite a few schizophrenic people who are on and off meds, because they "feel" ok. People with bipolar do the same thing, but are less likely (though it isn't as likely) to have a break with reality. If someone has a violent history, due to a mental illness, then yes, part of a "sentence" should include mandatory medication and counseling. As other posters have said, if someone refuses medication, then they should be required to reside in a locked facility. If they commit a crime while "off" meds, then they should face the consequences of the crime as any person without a mental illness would.

As for the movie "Serenity"..it was a great movie, and I miss the show terribly...however...it's a totally different situation. In Serenity, the drug was piped through an entire civilization, not just given to certain people. The government was not mindful of the fact that chemicals don't affect everyone the same way.

It's a good question, and one that really needs to be considered

(this is concerning the Virginia Tech Massacre) I believe that it was NBC or Fox News that said this... but they brought up the question is it ok for a person with mental problems to avoid taking medication for their problems just by saying that they don't want to? Discuss...

If we are to allow them the chance to make a choice, first they should be on the medication, and stable before they make that choice. Asking a madman to make an important descision rationally is like asking a horse to tapdance. It isn't that they wouldn't if they could, but they can't.

In cases where someone is a danger to others when unmedicated, they should have no option at all about taking their medication. On the other hand, they should also have that medication provided to them by the government, since they have no choice but to take it. If someone is not a danger to others, they should be placed on medication, given sufficient treatment to allow them to make a rational decision, and then allowed to decide for themselves, with the caviat that if they harm someone else as an effect of their mental illness, and they were able to take medication, but chose not to, it will be a secondary offense.

(this is concerning the Virginia Tech Massacre) I believe that it was NBC or Fox News that said this... but they brought up the question is it ok for a person with mental problems to avoid taking medication for their problems just by saying that they don't want to? Discuss...

All crazy people eventually sane up and stop taking their meds.

Do we force cancer patients to undergo chemo? Why do we make the assumption that people with a mental illness are unable to make their own decisions? Many people with a mental illness are quite capable of deciding for themselves whether to take medication or not. Many of them have excellent and quite justifiable reasons for not wishing to take medication to "treat" their illness. Who are we to make judgements on another person's choice?

(this is concerning the Virginia Tech Massacre) I believe that it was NBC or Fox News that said this... but they brought up the question is it ok for a person with mental problems to avoid taking medication for their problems just by saying that they don't want to? Discuss...

Yes.

Is forcibly drugging people against their will cool? Sure it is! Raping them's great fun too!

... You people are fucking unbelievable.

(this is concerning the Virginia Tech Massacre) I believe that it was NBC or Fox News that said this... but they brought up the question is it ok for a person with mental problems to avoid taking medication for their problems just by saying that they don't want to? Discuss...

no, it's not 'ok', but unless they are institutionalized, they cannot be forced to take their meds.

If it is going into their bodies it is their choice, however in not taking the meds they are taking responsibility for anything they do and their problems are no longer an excuse for their behavour if they fuck up.

Wiiiinnnnaaa!

If you're mildly depressed, and you don't take your meds, it's unlikely that your subsequent actions would hurt anyone.

I think the measure might be, "is there a risk that the patient will harm someone aside from themselves?"

If the answer is yes, that the risk is likely, then the patient should have zero choice in being medicated.