"Treating a certain scope of mental health in society is well within the grasp of a society that is committed to solving homelessness and still committed to individual rights."
If you study the history of psychiatry, you will find it involves changing fashions in coercing people who are deemed to be a nuisance.
The alleged disorders are NOT genuine medicine. On those few occasions where behaviour really was symptomatic of medical conditions; it was kicked out of psychiatry.
The alleged disorders of pschiatry are defined in non-pathophysiological terms. To seek "medical treatment" of such alleged disorders is speculative guessing and cosmetic manipulation where consent is given; and could be termed assault, torture, and chemical attack where consent is declined.
Thomas Szasz tells us: "the definition of the disorder and the terms in which its remedy is sought are at odds with one another".
To claim that those who "do not fit into society" (like "homeless") are "sick" is to raise the standard of "society" to obscene high moral ground. This may lead to social engineering like the Nazi Party.
Thomas Szasz suggestes that we value liberty more than health, however health is defined.
It is highly dangerous to allow people to be regarded as having physical illness when only their behaviour is dissaproved of by the weilders of psychiatric power.
"Mental health" carries the danger of using "health" the same way as the Nazis talked of gassing the Jews.
For the sake of clarity things should be called what they are. Disputes about society values (e.g. the value of working for a living versus the value of having an unpredictable future) are just that: disputes about values.
Harv you have left un-answered many arguments I posted.
Quote: "After all, if someone is obviously ill"
Obvious to who? What about Paul's story?" What about the fact that most "mentally ill" are provably medically healthy; any objective scientific evaluation of their health would show that it is a question of dissaproval of their behaviour at stake.
"and conforms to the symptoms of a severe mental illness"
If by "severe mental illness" you mean: "alleged physical illness with no pathophysiological evidence that this illness exists" this is the phrase you should use!
"then society as a whole deems fit to address those issues."
It did that when witches were burnt at the stake....?
"It may not be pleasing to Alan, but nothing Alan says here will affect how society responds to those who need psychological help".
That is not the question at issue. Those who argued against burning witches were not put off by the widespread belief in witches.
"By him voicing opposition he's only showing a sense of cruelity to those who suffer from their mental illness."
I never argued against people VOLANTARILY defining themselves as they see fit and seeking whatever "help" they believe in; I only argued against COERCION of non-believers, by believers in a religion called "the DSM".
The following law I suggest be passed:
Some countries have a scheme called "diversion", where first-time offenders for minor offenses can avoid a criminal record and do community service.
I suggest a withdrawal (leading to complete abolition of all pscchiatric slavery and compulsory pschiatric drugging/ other forms of say torture etc.) from present laws:
first: every person including Harv: have the right to have a "living will" where it is stated that should they ever be in a circumstance where allegations are made about their "mental state" and where anyone tries to incarcerate them or restrict them because of such allegations; that person shall be regarded consistent with their instructions in their living will.
So if the person is opposed to "the denial of one's right to personal responsibility for thinking one's thoughts and acting one's acts"; that persons right to responsibility would be upheld. This means they would have to accused of breaking a law and go through normal law-breaker procedures.
The nature of any accusations would have to be made explicit. They could obtain a medical report proving there is nothing wrong with their physical health. They would be regarded as equal parties to a dispute about acceptable values and behaviour.
A dispute mediation or arbitration process could take place; but this could place the accusers and society itself in the spotlight as much as the accused!
By having a process where all who do not believe in psychiatry or aspects of it can be diverted from totalitarian pschiatry into dispute mediation procedures:
many accusations would collapse as people decide not to hire what may seems to be say psychiatric "hit-men" to attack wayward relatives.
Instead of "diagnosis" there might be more dialogue.
Many people would opt to have the true nature of the conflict exposed; the power of hiding behind a facade of "health" talk would be lost by the psychiatric totalitarians.
Stripped of coercive powers, only fervent believers in pschiatry would be "helped"; but many of those might try to sue for being given false and misleading information by the psychiatrists? (as the "illnesses" are invented and do not have medical scientific backing.)
Note regular illnesses treatment is voluntary as medicine is not permitted to go totalitarian in free countries.
Psychiatric power would wither and die; and instead there would be free contracting between the market and the suppliers of all kinds of ways of "helping" with problems with living/ problems in society.
The goal is abolition of totalitarian psychiatry and of torture, coercive drugging, pschiatric slavery etc.
Not everything that ails a person is "sickness", nor is everything that "helps" a treatment; by physical medical standards.
The homeless need homes, not psychiatric totalitarianism!