Human Right to Health – More than Economic Justice


Health care in the United States is being defined as a human rights issue, but only in one dimension — economic justice and access. I completely support universal health care under a single payer system or some equivalent that will eliminate profit (as much as possible) from all parts of the health care system and provide everyone with what they need, irrespective of ability to pay. But two other aspects of health as a human right are left out: autonomy in principle and practice, and quality.

1. Autonomy

We are familiar with the autonomy issue in mental health, where it’s bounded and limited by the state’s coercive power delegated to psychiatrists. It is hard for many people to imagine what mental health would even look like if the state’s coercive power in this field were simply removed and taken out of the equation. For example, when I asked Jaako Seikkula of Open Dialogue, at the INTAR Conference in NY several years ago, whether they used forced treatment, he answered that the law allowed them to, and when I pressed him on what they would do if the law didn’t allow it, he wouldn’t or couldn’t answer.

Even in psychiatry and mental health, there is a lot of coercion that happens without any threat of the legalized abuses (commitment and forced treatment), similar to how it has also come to operate in ordinary health care. With depression screening, substance abuse screening, and now dementia screening increasingly prioritized in primary care (at a recent visit, I received no questions about my physical health but was asked to fill out depression and substance abuse questionnaires) the line is less and less clear in any case. (This is one of the reasons I have never supported the incorporation of mental health into general health care; another is the zealous prescribing of psych drugs.) BMI  (body mass index) questionnaires and smoking cessation programs represent other areas in health where one’s own behavior is liable to be coerced informally and possibly more formally as time goes on.

It is still possible to refuse to answer questions or participate in screenings, but one is not informed beforehand about the nature of the questions or given the explicit option to accept or refuse. The onus is on the person in a stressed condition of seeking health care to weigh up the potential consequences of participating or not participating, if one even spots what is happening and has become informed enough to have an opinion about it.

Outside the mental health context and some related disability movements (like autistic people), there is currently no movement advocating for autonomy in health care. The feminist women’s health movement, which had promoted taking charge of one’s own health and questioned the hierarchies in medicine (e.g. why do doctors often call us by our first names but introduce themselves as Doctor So-and-so?), has come to focus on access to reproductive health care and choices, including contraception and abortion — highly important but not the whole picture.  (They have also paid some attention to women’s differential physical markers and symptoms in health conditions that affect both sexes.) Reproductive rights are, moreover, as currently advocated, an issue on which providers and consumers of health care are agreeing. But something is lost, a great deal is lost, when we give up an independent advocacy platform about our own bodies and subsume our needs and rights into what medical professionals are motivated to fight for on our behalf. Fibromyalgia and many conditions unexplained in conventional western medicine, or simply asking a lot of questions, still result in dismissal and psychiatric referrals for many women — from my limited experience, disproportionately for women compared with men.

Midwifery and natural childbirth is also a genuine movement that still exists in part outside the medical profession, and, similar to homeschooling, has appealed to religious conservatives at least equally as to leftists. But again, though midwifery when practiced based on traditional principles can be genuinely about empowerment, based on profound respect for the power of women in the activity of childbirth and beyond, it is again an area where providers and consumers, if those terms are meaningful, are in agreement, though providers are unorthodox and outside the hegemony of the medical profession and its legal and financial policy structures. Also, midwifery pertains to one area of life, and only to women who become pregnant (i.e. generally not lesbians).

Herbal knowledge and similar knowledge and practices outside conventional medicine are still being practiced and shared, but are separated from the financing of conventional health care and also from the knowledge systems of conventional medicine. So it is left to the person to advocate and fight for herself in many spaces, and even some alternative practitioners act in ways that are controlling and even potentially coercive. (For example, a naturopath once asked if I could drive myself home, after she had given me an acupuncture treatment that left me woozy, and said that if I couldn’t she might have to take action as I could be a danger to myself or others. You’d best believe I got out of there and drove myself home, and never went back.) Also, such practitioners do not necessarily see their role as educative and collaborative with a person who is in the best position to know and direct her own health needs — that is a philosophical and political standpoint separate from the particular discipline, and perhaps also a question of personal inclination. Knowledge-sharing groups do exist but are not always enough, especially as one gets older.

My experience with the naturopath brings up another aspect of autonomy and legalized coercion. While it is interesting that she apparently invoked a mental health commitment framework despite there being no mental health diagnosis involved (and there would be no basis for mental health commitment absent such a diagnosis), there is a larger issue about mental capacity evaluations and how they are used against people, especially as we get older. Capacity evaluations and the threat of them, even as an implied threat, can be used handily to bully people into accepting health care or screenings they don’t want, or living arrangements they don’t want, or support arrangements they don’t want. In at least some assisted living facilities, mental and physical capacity evaluations can be used to require you to move out of your living space to a ‘different level of care,’ including a locked dementia ward. And a positive finding on a dementia screening (e.g. imperfect memory) can put your medical providers on alert to question your capacity if they hadn’t yet thought to do so.

If you have read my blog before, you probably know that the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities changes international human rights law with regard to capacity. While the U.S. has not ratified the CRPD, 172 countries have, the vast majority of U.N. member states. This means that the CRPD standards are legally binding in most of the world, and are influencing customary international law in the same direction. In General Comment No. 1 of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, an interpretive document by the expert group designated under the treaty to monitor compliance with its provisions, the Committee said that actual or perceived limitations in mental capacity, or decision-making skill, cannot be used to deprive a person of legal capacity or the right to make decisions. This applies for single decisions as well as the person’s overall status. The CRPD thus prohibits guardianship and other forms of substitute decision-making, and prohibits capacity assessments and their use to coerce people into unwanted health care or living arrangements.

Health care providers are required under CRPD standards to respect the person’s decisions and to offer accommodations and access to independent support if the person wants to avail themselves of these. Support can be useful so long as it is chosen and directed by the person and does not become itself a means of coercion and control.

If capacity assessments and deprivation of autonomy as a result were done away with, the threat could no longer be used to bully people, the same as doing away with the legalized power of psychiatric commitment and forced treatment would mean that express or implied threats of commitment could no longer be used to bully people into taking unwanted drugs.

And still, we would face the problem of how to regulate and safeguard against subtle bullying — systemic bullying like simply starting to do a screening without telling the person what it is and giving them the option to accept or refuse. This could be addressed by laws and policies to strengthen obligations on free and informed consent and make them more consumer-friendly, as opposed to being reduced to a measure that offers providers safety from liability and is probably linked to malpractice insurance. (Similarly, how we deal with accommodations and support arrangements for health care decision-making is going to be crucial to ensuring collaboration with the person in their decision-making and not a manipulated outcome.)

Single payer health care, from what I have been told, would reduce the need for malpractice insurance, since people will be guaranteed the health care they need to repair damage another provider has done, which is reportedly the largest part of malpractice insurance payouts. So it may help to create a better basis on which to address issues of policy such as I am describing here. Yet single payer will not do this automatically, especially if there is no autonomous, independent movement of people taking back their health autonomy, connecting the dots and advocating for it. Single payer without such a movement will continue down the managed care road we are on now, and can even exacerbate managed care tendencies that aim to control people’s health choices through subtle manipulation and passive aggressive techniques such as I am describing.

I’ll say it again: we need an autonomous movement of people taking back our own health, independent from any health care providers and willing to question pre-existing law and policy from the bottom up. It needs to have a feminist component, and components related to anti-colonialism and centering communities of color, but it has to encompass everyone and put all of us together, including consciousness of what we bring from these standpoints and experiences that mainstream institutions of any kind do not consider or prioritize.

2. Quality

I’ve addressed some quality issues here in passing — in particular there is a dumbing-down that goes with manipulative screenings, and there is the absence of coverage for alternative practitioners. But there is more.

For the past 30 years or so, there has been a shift to what I think of as ‘assembly-line medicine.’ Practitioners are resorting to standardized protocols of one kind or another and not doing as much thinking for themselves. The art of medicine is lost, and so is the science, as it becomes mere conventional wisdom that has a claim to authority despite often being contrary to better evidence.

A health care provider I saw recently made a comment that helped put this into a larger perspective. In response to my questions about different kinds of breast cancer screening, she volunteered that breast MRI would be most effective, but that it isn’t being offered because it’s not cost-effective to give every woman in the relevant age bracket an MRI every year. This raises some potential questions of sex equity that ought to be looked at, and I would like to flag for anyone in a position to do so. But what caught my attention was her use of the phrase “population-based medicine.”

I have seen in many articles for the lay public a similar approach that evaluates statistically the likelihood that a particular treatment or screening will be effective in population terms, and then makes recommendations about whether it should become standard protocol. This approach to medicine treats us not as individuals who each deserve the best possible care, but as mere numbers in a game that is measured by how many people in total, or percentage-wise, benefit or fail to benefit, how many of us die and how many survive a particular condition. Our individual outcome — our suffering or death — is nothing but collateral damage, and doctors who practice this way,increasingly more and more as this is how they are trained, are not able, not empowered, to think for themselves as individuals much less to think together with us as the knowers of our own bodies.

Medical practitioners who still practice the art of medicine, or try to, can be allies here, and they are. Yet we still need an autonomous movement so as not to ever confuse provider interests with every person’s need and right to quality care provided on the basis of respect for the person as knower of their body, and with protections for fully free and informed consent. Many people on this site are more knowledgeable than I am about the quality aspect of health care in particular, and I would love to hear what you can illuminate for me and others who are interested.

3. Our transformative journeys, support and health

Autonomy always exists in a relational context and also pertains to our relations with other beings. We come into the world connected to our mothers and cannot survive without intensive adult support. We come into a human community and do not know life or the world or ourselves separate from our relations to others — learning itself is a creation and re-creation of relationships to the world and to other beings, among other things that it may be. Navigating autonomy is navigating our relationships with other people, and depends on our place in a community, existence of social hierarchies, economic conditions and our needs —what we are willing and able to do to meet our basic needs and how much we are exploiting others or being exploited, including sexual and emotional labor, to make this easier or harder.

Our transformative journeys do not necessarily need support, whether that is in the context of mental health, health, birth or death. But they might. Western conventional medicine has saved, or prolonged, the life of many people I love, and I don’t want to throw that away. I think that there is something about the hegemony and social authority given to the medical profession in capitalist state society that is responsible for part of the problem I am describing with regard to autonomy. I am not sure how much of this is cultural as opposed to legal and economic; how much it may be possible to de-deify doctors and treat them instead as informed advisers and collaborators, informed practitioners with technical skills and training, while we retain responsibility for our own lives and health.

I don’t mean responsibility in the shaming sense of kicking people off welfare benefits or penalizing people for their weight or smoking or drug use. It’s personal responsibility, as our health cannot be something meant to serve others, that is the meaning of health as a human right, since human beings are ends in ourselves, each and every one. It’s responsibility to ourselves that accepts the inevitability of death, sickness, failure, mistakes, catastrophe — the opposite of the American Dream.

Returning to personal responsibility in this sense really just means wiping away the colonialist illusions that America was based on, at least white America. Maybe the hard times we’re in can create this opening, not to stop fighting for our lives and for justice and democracy in all dimensions, rather as a basis for policy and law that is sustainable for human beings and the planet. I do think that capitalism and the state as forms of economic and political organization, and patriarchy as sexual organization, need to be questioned, as those systems treat individuals as means to an end — masses to be exploited and governed by others.

These concluding remarks go beyond health as a human right but relate to it, as our bodies cannot be dissociated from ourselves and our political, economic and sexual existence in the world. Thank you for paying attention.


Mad in America hosts blogs by a diverse group of writers. These posts are designed to serve as a public forum for a discussion—broadly speaking—of psychiatry and its treatments. The opinions expressed are the writers’ own.


Mad in America has made some changes to the commenting process. You no longer need to login or create an account on our site to comment. The only information needed is your name, email and comment text. Comments made with an account prior to this change will remain visible on the site.


  1. The psychiatric industry is so good at playing “both sides of the isle” I don’t see how moving left or right would help.

    If they want to drug more school kids they play the lefty politicians
    If they want more strict commitment laws they play the righty ones

    Pharma donates to both sides

    Report comment

  2. Yikes Tina. How clearly you are cutting through the water in which we swim–the paternalistic “in-the-best-interests” of other people’s bodies and lives of the Western health care system. This extends to the world in which we still exercise our colonial interests. In talking with a friend from Burundi, I learned that limited funds donated by Westerners to refugee students in Rwanda cover tuition, housing and western-style health care. The students need food to stay healthy and would prefer it over the health care. Especially the mental health care, which all of the students rejected even though it was pushed. The students’ response was that they have each other, the people in their community who know and understand them and give them the emotional support they need. Scarcity can pose heartbreaking choices but giving the people at the centre of our concern those choices is essential.
    Western mh therapy before food? Needless to say, the students who starve, drop out.

    Report comment

    • That says a lot about western donors’ priorities. I wonder about some of the details of where the interests and pressure are coming from, at what point it is direct complicity with an industry, versus assumptions and agendas that just are not responsive to what people are saying about themselves and their needs. Why do the donors have this agenda, in other words? That would be worthwhile to figure out.

      Report comment

      • In this case prioritizing health care before food is not due to direct industry pressure but assumptions due to ideology, limited knowledge and experience. For middle class Westerners, fear of exotic diseases like Malaria trump our lack of fear of hunger, which we experience as choice or on the rare occasion of a postponed meal. There is general belief here that at least scraps of food can be found when needed, and in many places, it really can not be. In the case of this project, microloans are made available to students to figure out how to earn food money, which works only for the entrepreneurish types, creating a rift of inequality in the community–those with and without access to food funds, those successful with the micro-loan endeavor and those not… causing further harm. This is not spoken of, just tolerated as people are not asked, people do not want to criticize the people who are supporting them. Silence is assumed to be acquiescence.

        Report comment

        • Thanks for the follow-up information.

          It makes sense that the western middle class, who would be in charge of those kind of programs, would have little ability to understand the need for food as simple. Yet we don’t even have to go to an African country to see the impact of hunger on students; in the US this is the reason for the school lunch program, and periodically politicians have to be reminded of hunger as a reality.

          Report comment

  3. I think those writing up the health care reform need to learn more about a free market economy and how government intervenes within a free market system. It’s been more of a hybrid system with healthcare, insurance, and government intwined.

    The health care act is essentially leaving a free market system with the goal of universal healthcare.

    This lack of understanding and interest is DOWNING the push for universal right to healthcare for all.

    Report comment

    • And there are excellent examples of it already being done. Switzerland being perhaps the best. Insurance companies still participate in the market despite single-payer government controls and they make plenty of profits. The real problem isn’t lack of interest, it’s conflicts of interests, as in our legislators being bought off by insurance companies.

      Report comment

    • The fact that you used the phrase “free market” without quotes shows that you don’t understand how the economy actually works. We in the US need improved Medicare for all (i.e., single payer). Obamneycare is a failure and a cash giveaway to insurance companies and other profiteers.

      Report comment

    • I don’t know if you misunderstood me or if you simply disagree. As far as I can tell in the U.S., given our economic system, political system and other factors, single payer makes more sense here than a hybrid as in what ‘uprising’ in their comments here calls Obamneycare.

      Irrespective of where we go in creating a system that actually provides for universal health care – which the ACA does not, and for the record ACA remains a giveaway to insurance companies as well as doing a lot of good in getting people health care who wouldn’t have it otherwise- irrespective of how we get there, my point in this article is that universal access is not the sum total of health as a human right.

      I am not very interested in debating the economic justice aspects of this, particularly in this forum. I prefer to focus on the points made in the article about the need for a movement to reclaim autonomy and power with regard to our own health, and to promote quality from the perspective of those who are using health care – both of which necessitate a movement that is independent from health care providers, and that we do not have right now, or if we do it is not very visible or active outside the context of psychiatric survivors and related groups.

      Report comment

      • Thank you Tina for this important article . These are vital issues ,to reclaim autonomy and power with regard to our own health , and to be able to access and afford if we choose or not , help or info from anywhere or anyone irregardless of their title or what they call their discipline. If some are worried about regulating questionable procedures and substances , first actually regulate the pharma cartel, the AMA, mainstream dentistry, and psychiatry and outlaw whatever and all they do that is outright quackery and human life endangering , which is certainly the great majority of their endeavors .There is already a Health Freedom movement but your ideas build on it and are very important . Robert Young’s book ” Sick and Tired” also offers a way forward and some clarity .
        When the wealthiest robber barons using the cartels they control to promote and pursue their fondest dream of unilaterally lowering by billions the human population of the earth while making a profit at it, it is a revolutionary act to try and stay alive and maintain some level of health well being , when even the air , water , and food are being willfully adulterated.

        Report comment

  4. Wow, there is so much here. Tina, if you’re looking for anyone committed to taking our bodies back, I’m in. Leaving mental health “care” was the best move I could have made. I am disgusted with my recent experience at an ER, where I think I should not have gone but I’d had a seizure (think: post-ECT) and didn’t give myself the chance to talk myself out of it. I found that “healthcare” is in a sorry state indeed! What you say is true!

    They never examined me, nor spoke to me beyond getting my name. Apparently they went behind my back and got old opthalmology records from last August (where I refused to let the doc operate and he treated me like “foolish woman” and probably wrote that as well). So they came back to me saying the usual disgusting line, “Oh, we know all about you.” I told them off, saying that if they’d “discussed my case” they should have involved me in the discussion.

    Then, with no explanation, they gave me Benadryl via the IV, LIED to me saying it was “for your headache,” then, immediately gave me Reglan. I’ve never taken that and had not complained of stomach issues. I concluded that I was given this in error, that perhaps it was intended for another patient. Then they had to cover up what they’d done. this is a dangerous pill. Asking “Are you allergic to any meds” is NOT informed consent!

    I was outa there, very fast. I am terrified to go back to any Western practitioner. I’ve been tending to my injuries myself, and amazed at how fast I’m getting better on my own.

    Beyond that, I also found acupuncture years ago made me woozy. They told me to wait 20 minutes before walking home in traffic. They offered me tea, too, and I had no objection, since I couldn’t walk too well at first!

    I always tell people, “Take your life back from institutional ownership.” And of course, “Ditch the diagnosis.”


    Report comment

    • Thanks for your comments Julie – and congratulations on your own article on Medium that I saw today.

      It makes me angry and disgusted to hear all these instances. And really it seems to be happening a lot more to women than to men. Maybe I will succeed in putting together some kind of small group to see what we can do, will surely count you in.

      All the best,


      Report comment

      • Sorry, Tina, I’m a man (last time I checked), and it “happened” to me. However, may I point out that when it does “happen” to men, like in my case 31 years ago, it happens rather severely, like deliberate disablement.

        Your posts are articulately put, no doubt, women are exploited to high degrees. However, so are men, they are however more hesitant to say so.

        Report comment

      • Wow, thanks Tina. Appreciated. I think certain groups who are often marginalized are more subject to psych bigotry than others. For instance, gay and trans people, or those born into poverty.

        As for poverty, I am shocked at the assumptions I see around me. I hear stuff like “Poor people are bad parents,” “Poor people are all addicted to drugs,” “They’re dirty,” stuff like that.

        What I dislike the most from the medical profession is the immediate assumption that because I am “broke” i don’t have a brain in my head. The medical people are the worst around this.

        Report comment

  5. I know a little about free market and mixed market economies from high school.

    Just seems this whole part of healthcare reform is conveniently left out of the story in articles I read.

    We’re partly to blame for not insisting newspapers enlighten us in their articles. It’s paramount to know how all the different parts are interwoven like government, hospitals, insurance industry in creating healthcare reform.

    It’s like there are two dogs in the neighborhood living side by side. In the darkness the news outlets are strolling through the alley making the dogs bark at each other until the aggression gets higher. They are controlling the conversation.

    The two dogs need to remain calm and vigilant and not be manipulated by the cunning and pervasive news outlets and seek out truth.

    Report comment

    • I don’t think ‘we’ are to blame for what news media do any more than ‘we’ are to blame for what government does. That’s a navel-gazing trap that lets the actual perpetrators off the hook.

      If you mean that we need to seek out the best news outlets we can, and use critical thinking on all of them – including those that are promoting themselves as reliable and ‘non-fake’ – I entirely agree with you and have said as much myself in many places. Not sure how that relates to autonomy and quality in health care, are you making a connection?

      Report comment

      • Tina, the institutional websites (run by hospitals, by such as NAMI, etc) all make the claim of being “The Authority” and advise readers not to go to other sites…….Yes, it’s disgusting.

        I’ve been criticized in the past of writing a “bad blog” and I think whoever said it has no understanding of the difference between a research-based blog and a personal blog. Personal stories are reliable and often written completely true to the events they describe. Research blogs (“Three out of four patients responded to…”) are often fudged or biased to get readers to buy whatever they’re selling.

        Report comment

  6. It is hard for many people to imagine what mental health would even look like if the state’s coercive power in this field were simply removed and taken out of the equation.

    Many believe that if not for the ability to coerce psychiatry would disappear in short order. Coercion, of course, is more than forced “treatment.” It also includes “voluntary” situations entered into under the threat of court commitment, those “screenings” you mention embedded into “real” health care, and pharma propaganda constantly spewed by the media they own. Psychiatry needs to lose its accreditation as a field of medicine and the right to dispense neurotoxins as “medication,” as well as the ability to present psychiatric opinion as “expert” testimony. Once we can dispense with all this psychiatry’s own support system will have vanished and its effectual demise would follow shortly thereafter.

    Report comment

    • I have a sense of frustration at this proposal, much as for me personally it would be fine if psychiatry lost its accreditation and the neurotoxins were banned. My frustration is in two parts:

      1. I don’t see much possibility of it happening. Despite all the scandals, institutionally I see psychiatry continuing to rehabilitate itself and sell itself both as happy pills, or last resort way out of terror, and social control. Also, the rest of medicine is becoming institutionally more like psychiatry and so will have less ability to criticize it.

      2. People want psychiatry, and its neurotoxins. And I can’t tell them that they’re just wrong. Our bodies are all so different from one another, what feels good, what tastes good to me is vastly different even from what works for my partner. If some people feel their spirituality is enhanced by SSRIs and others are dampened down by them, as a recent study found, what does that tell us? What is spirituality, is it the same thing or different for the two groups?

      I’m interested in what can be done, because ultimately I do think we need to have a real shift back to sustainable and holistic ways of doing everything. But, similar to how I feel about western medicine – re western medicine I have friends who survived cancer because of chemo or radiation, and who are kept alive in progressively disabling conditions because of medications and assistive devices, and I have friends who use psychiatric medications as their choice and cannot and do not want to stop. I don’t want to dictate to anybody what their health choices should be.

      Do you, or anyone in this conversation, have any thoughts on how to address this tension? In terms of what I addressed in this article, it has partly to do with the relationship between autonomy and quality.

      Report comment

        • Look forward to hearing more.

          Re-reading your comment I definitely agree with the point about expert witnesses and see that as overlapping between the CRPD requirement to eliminate legal capacity deprivations based on ‘mental capacity’ assessments, and the delegitimization of psychiatric diagnosis as any kind of science.

          I agree that psychiatric diagnoses are not science, not neutral or objective in any sense, and this is something that can be worked on.

          Re the question of neurotoxins as medication, I think you have to find a way to distinguish from chemotherapy for cancer or else to deal with both in the same way. And I would wonder about the possibility advanced by Joanna Moncrieff of prescribing based on drug effects and what the person wants rather than diagnosis. That would wreak havoc with insurance under current US system, don’t know how it would work in other countries, but would be closer to what I am advocating or groping towards, in terms of return to the ‘art’ and honest science of medicine.

          Report comment

          • I would take it further and say that psychiatric diagnoses are assaults on one’s personhood and a form of hate speech.

            Back to the “delegitimization” thing — it should be considered as a reasonable demand simply because it makes sense; psychiatry is not and could never be “medicine,” and is fraud by definition This step would not necessarily eradicate psychiatry by itself, but would cut out its underpinnings to a great degree, and would logically lead to psychiatric “medications” being viewed more as drugs of abuse outside a legitimate medical context, or forms of legal recreational drugs (which in many or most cases would soon be rejected by the popular market in favor of better and safer substances).

            Likewise, the end of coercive psychiatry would bring a virtual end to billions of dollars in profits from salaries,drugs, court cases, etc. Both steps combined would reduce the psychiatric industry to a few thousand lone psychoanalytically oriented “psychiatrists” in name only “treating” voluntary clients. Since a medical degree would be of little use at that point the field as such would fade away.

            In terms of the day after tomorrow, all this falls into the “dream on” category of course. But in terms of what direction we should go and what we should be demanding, I go with the old slogan “Be realistic, demand the impossible.” 🙂

            One more thought about demands since I’m talking to a lawyer (I may have asked this before) — shouldn’t we also be demanding that psychiatric interrogations which could lead to involuntary commitments be subject to all Miranda requirements?

            Report comment

          • Hope this reply posts in the right place, replying to old head.

            In my view, Miranda requirements on involuntary commitments would just be another procedural reform that makes little difference in the end and reinforces the legal and social legitimacy of that abusive practice. Involuntary commitment is a creature of law and it can be destroyed by destroying the laws that allow it to happen. Few psychiatrists would be willing to risk arrest and lawsuits for false imprisonment, if the commitment laws did not give their acts the stamp of legality.

            Re delegitimization again, how would you accomplish that? Who, what institution(s) give psychiatry its current legitimacy as a medical profession, and could take it away?

            Report comment

          • Why can’t patients just choose, buy ’em out of vending machines, perhaps.

            Throughout my three plus decades of mental health care I always knew far better than the psych what drugs I should be on. Getting them to listen and take me seriously was a big game-and-a-half.

            “Hey doc, did you remember I came to you for an eating disorder? Can we get back to my agenda, please?” But all that was useless.

            Report comment

    • Old Head is right. Psychiatry must be abolished. People will still be free to do whatever they like… in fact they will be even more free. The point is that psychiatry is by its very nature coercive, even as it poses as “medical” and “voluntary.” The problem is that those who “voluntarily” choose to drug themselves or to subject themselves to psychiatric imprisonment and torture really have no clue about the so-called “medications” or the history of psychiatry. Anyone who knows anything about the history of psychiatry understands that, like slavery, psychiatry must be abolished. After its abolition, if people still wish to drug themselves, so be it.

      Report comment

      • Not sure what you mean – that after abolition of psychiatry the same drugs can be available to people? And abolition of psychiatry being its delegitimization as a profession? So the drugs would be… just an option for people to try and figure out for themselves?

        I still wonder about how the abolition would be accomplished and what would come in its place.

        I am mindful of Michelle Alexander’s warnings in The New Jim Crow or the cautionary message that is implied from that book, that a terrible institution might just take other forms if the basis isn’t rooted out.

        This could apply both to abolition of legalized forced paternalistic interventions such as psychiatry (what is required by CRPD) and to abolition of psychiatry (which wouldn’t necessarily eliminate forced paternalistic interventions).

        I suppose that abolition of psychiatry would be accomplished if there is a strong enough movement, but I also believe that if psychiatry’s legalized coercive power is taken away, the nature of the institution would have to change. Still hoping to understand how people envision the delegitimization.

        Report comment

        • Thank you for your community service. I believe that mental distress is a social welfare problem rather than a medical problem; a medical (biological) science that addresses a social “philosophy of mind” is fundamentally pseudoscience. Pathologizing natural emotional suffering worsens outcomes; counselors and social workers should lead “mental health” care with family physicians prescribing drugs (that address the emotional pain and sleep problems caused by emotional suffering). Psychiatry only makes sense if mental distress is a medical problem; psychiatry is THE problem if mental distress is not a medical (biological) problem.

          Report comment

        • Some of us are currently involved in some fairly circular arguments about the nature of “abolition,” “coercion,” etc. and many of these same issues are arising.

          Something I want to address here, which I don’t see being approached this way even by most anti-psych people, is the subtext in the whole notion of “alternatives,” as we often face the argument that “you can’t get rid of it unless you have an alternative.” This argument only works if one accepts the implied assumption that psychiatry currently serves a human need, albeit poorly, so to eliminate it would leave people in the lurch. However if one sees psychiatry as primarily a form of domestic repression which serves alongside the prison system to suppress the populace, the “alternatives” argument falters. It makes about as much sense as saying that we can’t eliminate racism or homophobia without an “alternative.”

          There are human needs, material and spiritual, which need to be met by a just culture as a matter of course. Filling them does not constitute an “alternative to psychiatry” any more than eating is an “alternative to starvation.” The fact that those who can’t function in a toxic system are labeled and tortured by psychiatry doesn’t mean that providing them with what they actually need constitutes an “alternative,” or justifies an argument that “it’s a good thing we at least had psychiatry until we discovered a better alternative.” The alternative to psychiatry is no psychiatry.

          How to achieve “delegitimization” would be a heady matter to tackle; first it would have to be adopted by enough people as a serious goal. It would involve lots of people becoming super-skilled at explaining to absurdities of the medical model to both “street-level” people and the “mainstream,” as well as those within the mh apparatus (a lower priority). Once the literal impossibility of “mental illness” and the manipulation of metaphor involved in the concept lose their “emperor’s new clothes” power to spellbind, and an average 14 year old can understand how ludicrous the idea actually is, it might then be seen as prudent by an already embattled AMA establishment to cut its losses and cut psychiatry loose to preserve some of its credibility.

          Anyway that’s one scenario that comes to mind. It would require a multi-faceted, multi-front “attack.” Hard to say whether it’s strategically better to go after involuntary “treatment” first or this, but they definitely go hand in hand.

          Report comment

          • I vehemently agree with everything you say, oldhead, but I suspect that it might be easier to begin by exposing the fraudulence of forced “treatment,” in trying to persuade people who don’t understand why psychiatry is inherently monstrous (i.e., almost everyone).

            Report comment

          • “Vehemently agree?” Interesting phrasing. 🙂

            I don’t think we should have to persuade people that we’re oppressed before we demand liberation, but sure, lots of things about psychiatry need to be exposed to help create that critical mass of opposition. It doesn’t have to be in any particular order i.m.o.

            Report comment

          • old head,

            You say ‘alternative to starvation,’ yet tell that to the woman I know, a professional and human rights advocate, who cannot imagine her life without psychiatric drugs and doesn’t want to. She isn’t starving, by any stretch of the imagination. Nor are psych drugs all she does, she is aware of needing certain kinds of support in her daily life and she has someone to give it to her.

            On the other hand, I also know many people who are in an in-between place, who are looking for something, would welcome a drug if it actually got rid of the ways they feel terrible, hate the adverse effects, would welcome enthusiastically something better. Psychiatry hasn’t worked for them but nothing else has either, they are desperately unhappy and haven’t connected with anything that lets them live in peace.

            The way you describe psychiatry, I don’t think you are separating the coercive institutional and legal aspects from the paternalism (which can be equally present in therapy), and from any possible elements that give anybody something that they need.

            I entirely agree that abolition of psychiatry as a social control institution cannot be subject to development of alternatives. Abolition of legalized coercion is the first step, then there are other collateral ways that it operates as social control. That is what CRPD requires.

            And, in its current form psychiatry as a profession, as a social institution, cannot be separated from paternalism and legally-empowered coercion. Organized psychiatry does not want to liberate itself from its deified status and struggle as ordinary human beings, I suppose they aren’t sure they’d have anything to offer. This doesn’t seem to me any different the way it operates, than white supremacy and male supremacy; it takes a willingness to let go of hierarchy and not see it as part of one’s own identity, to find an identity that doesn’t depend on being above someone else. I think it can be done.

            Report comment

        • Yes, Tina, drugs should be available, all of them, without prescriptions. The lack of prescribing privilege dis-empowers the MD professions. They will be paid less and no one will want to go to one. Take back your ability to choose. Many will just say no, especially after they are totally aware of the consequences and are no longer subject to coercion.

          Report comment

  7. Excellent article, Tina. I like to think that fewer people would want psychiatry if there were viable, affordable (or, preferably free, community-based) alternatives in place, and also if informed consent were not a myth. With regard to fibromyalgia, it happens that my friends who suffer from it have been subjected to long-term psychiatric drug treatment. Coincidence? Are there studies on this subject? With regard to herbal and other alternative remedies, some of which I believe are wonderful, at least for some people: not only is it too true that such things “are separated from the financing of conventional health care and also from the knowledge systems of conventional medicine”; I frequently see the idea promoted that they are dangerous, or insufficiently studied. Whereas, of course, psychiatric “treatments” are in fact dangerous and insufficiently/fraudulently studied.

    Report comment

    • Yes, all the people who now have Fibro that I know all took anti-depressants. I heard Grace Jackson, MD speak and she mentions the SSRI drugs which pass through the blood-brain barrier actually damage nerve endings in the brain. I asked her if this meant the same drugs could do similar damage to nerve endings elsewhere. She said, “Good question. Probably this is true, but we have yet to do the research to back it up.” In other words, yes, the idea is plausible, but either they haven’t looked into it, or the results of research were hidden from the public.

      Report comment

      • Thanks, Julie. Easy to imagine both that no one, or almost no one, is looking at this, and that research results, if any, would be hidden. As it happens, the people I know with fibro were drugged primarily with neuroleptics. Mind you, I know, and know of, far too many people who were initially diagnosed with depression, for which they were given “antidepressants,” which then resulted in “psychosis” and, of course, drugging with neuroleptics.

        Report comment

        • At the time, Grace’s talk was specifically on the SSRI damages, although she said ALL pharmaceuticals do some damage. She has seen elders who took SSRI’s and she saw early dementia and all sorts of harms from the drugs. She also said that anti-p’s do much harm.

          Report comment

          • I have no doubt that all psychiatric drugs “work” by causing brain damage, among the many other kinds of damage they cause in the name of “treating” the mythical illnesses with which so many of us have been diagnosed.

            Report comment

      • Yep, Irit, it’s a huge scam.

        As for the media, I’m concerned about the bombarding of scare tactics a la Boston Globe Spotlight (thank you, Sera) which “inform” the public about what terrible subhuman violent monsters we are because we’re “untreated.”

        Report comment

  8. Thank you for spelling out some of the steps to taking our bodies back.

    Single payer health care is an improvement on the profit model, however, if you look at the drugging rates of socialized medicine countries: UK, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, and some of the Scandanavian countries – you will see that they are similar, and can be as draconian as the USA.

    Australia’s single payer is really a tiered system, with the illusion of “private cover” being more affordable with the single payer base. This private cover is blatantly corporate and profit driven, with some institutions keeping “revolving doors” for their “clients.” It may not be anything more than semantic – a profit driven hospital is more likely to talk in terms of beds, turnover, services, and billable hours, than perhaps a public hospital.

    But Australia’s forced treatment policies only require the statement of one psychiatrist for “Sectioning” and CTO’s are enforced with enthusiasm.

    It will take far more than a single payer system to heal these wounds. So I guess I fall into the “until psychiatry is discredited and dung heaped – it won’t get better” camp. And with the value of social control in this Brave New World – I don’t think that the powers that be will allow this to happen without a huge battle.

    Report comment

    • So battle we must. But more people must see psychiatry exposed for what it is, as until the enemy is identified no one knows who or what to battle against. Psychiatry is inherently deadly and fraudulent, it cannot be “reformed.”

      Report comment