Green Party of California: Forced Treatment Must Be Abolished

17
793

On August 5, the Green Party of California—with 93,000 voters registered in the state and high visibility among people disillusioned with the two party system and the Democrat-led steady decline of the state—endorsed the abolition of forced psychiatric treatment.

Illustration of green posters protest

In a public statement, the Party wrote,

The Green Party of California hereby endorses the call to abolish all involuntary psychiatric and psychological interventions, including forced hospitalizations, forced drugging, and related coercive practices. We stand with those who have experienced trauma through forced treatment and recognize that compassionate, evidence-based alternatives exist that honor human dignity and autonomy.

This endorsement aligns directly with GPCA’s Ten Key Values and platform commitments. Our principle that “all human beings must be allowed a say in decisions that affect their lives; no one should be subject to the will of another” is fundamentally incompatible with forced psychiatric interventions. Our commitment to non-violence demands that we reject institutional violence disguised as treatment.

The “Abolish Forced Psychiatry” statement calls for ending all legal and social discrimination based on psychiatric diagnostic labeling, establishing non-coercive supports including community mutual aid and peer support, rejecting the criminalization of social problems and disability, and addressing the root causes of emotional distress through ending poverty and promoting disability justice.

Recent developments like California’s Proposition 1, which provides no alternatives to forced treatment while deceptively promising housing solutions, demonstrate the urgent need for this advocacy. Despite opposition from Disability Rights California, Cal Voices, Mental Health America of California, and the ACLU, Prop 1 passed, highlighting how authoritarian approaches continue to be promoted over evidence-based alternatives.

The psychiatric survivor movement has long challenged the false choice between “force or neglect.” Compassionate, voluntary support systems can effectively meet people’s needs during emotional crises and have a proven evidence base. The voices of people harmed by forced psychiatric intervention are, too often drowned out by the pharmaceutical industry narratives that dominate our media, and these voices deserve to be heard and honored.

The Green Party of California recognizes that true social justice requires addressing the root causes of emotional distress – poverty, social isolation, discrimination, and systemic oppression – rather than responding with force and coercion. We call for investment in community-based supports, peer-run services, and voluntary alternatives that treat people with dignity and respect their fundamental human rights.

We urge other organizations and individuals to join this growing movement by signing onto the “Abolish Forced Psychiatry” statement at www.abolishforcedpsychiatry.org.

The Abolish Forced Psychiatry statement is a sign-on effort to gather endorsements for an end to forced psychiatric treatment world-wide. The statement was launched in July 2025 and has been gathering individual and organizational endorsers, including International Society for Psychological and Social Approaches to Psychosis-US (ISPS-US), Institute for the Development of the Human Arts (IDHA), Project LETS, Mindfreedom, Tennessee Mental Health Consumers’ Association, Wildflower Alliance, Center for Disability Rights, and Pennsylvania Mental Health Consumers Association. You and your organization are invited to endorse as well.

The statement reads:

Abolish all involuntary psychiatric and psychological interventions, including forced hospitalizations, forced drugging, and related coercive practices.

End all legal and social discrimination based on psychiatric or psychological diagnostic labeling or actual or perceived disability.

Establish non-coercive supports and services for people when they experience emotional distress or life crises, including, but not limited to community mutual aid, peer support, voluntary crisis sanctuaries, as well as the right to voluntarily access all mainstream services and affordable housing free of coercion.

Reject the criminalization and forced psychiatrization of social problems, difference, disability, and struggles for survival.

Recognize the social and economic causes of emotional distress, and work to meet everyone’s basic needs in the community, including ending poverty, overcoming social exclusion, and promoting disability justice, human rights, and carceral system transformation.

A recent forced treatment study brings home the point made widely in the research literature for years—forcing people into psychiatric treatment doesn’t work, and does harm instead.

The Green Party of California endorsement is especially significant because it represents a cross-issue connection and broadening the base of awareness around forced treatment and abolition. While some psychiatric human rights strategies emphasize public education and asking mental health agencies to change their views (the “appeal to reason, seat at the table, and begging for grants” approach), cross-issue connections use a different tactic: building strength through numbers and aiming to force change through the pressure of sheer political power. Community activists have long known the folly of trying to enact change through appealing to the powerful. As Frederick Douglass noted in his famous quote, “”Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” Decades of mental health activism has failed to achieve even the most basic goals of the rights movement, as the situation for mental patients has grown worse and the net of drugging and dehumanization gotten bigger. The Abolish Forced Psychiatry statement is a step in the direction towards a new strategy. (Organizations already working for abolition may not wish to sign this specific statement, though we’d like them to—the point is for everyone in favor of abolition to be public, on the record, and uncompromising.)

The Abolish Forced Psychiatry statement is also a strategy against the forces of cooptation that have played a key role in movement failures. Getting leadership on record against forced treatment will help identify false leaders who owe allegiance more to their funding and career than they do the basic principles of the patients rights movement. The next time you interact with someone who makes money off mental health reform politics, ask if they are against forced treatment and if so will they sign on to the abolition statement. True colors might be revealed.

***

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.

17 COMMENTS

  1. The statement is good.

    Now I want some specific clarification about what to do with someone who is suicidal or homicidal? Someone who is completely out of touch with reality?
    “all human beings must be allowed a say in decisions that affect their lives; no one should be subject to the will of another” is not realistic in all cases.

    Report comment

    • I’ve helped hundreds of suicidal individuals through caring communication. And of course, when someone’s planning to hurt another person, they need to be restrained from doing so. But it does not follow that they need enforced “treatment.” Their autonomy needs to be respected to the maximum degree possible.

      Report comment

        • I can see arguments in favor of doing so, and arguments against. I would probably consider it a case by case decision at best.

          My point is that needing to be restrained or limited in one’s behavior doesn’t necessitate a “mental illness diagnosis” nor any kind of forced “treatment.” In fact, my view is that anything forced is NOT “treatment,” by definition.

          Report comment

          • Hi Steve, Thanks for responding, and sorry I never got back to this. The reason I asked is because I was considering my own thoughts on the matter and debating whether or not to sign the endorsement for Abolish Forced Psychiatry.

            I’ve decided to sign it. I see the principles as being very idealistic and visionary, which is not a bad thing, but it does mean taking the long view and acknowledging that they are not realistic any time in the near future, but they can, nonetheless, guide us towards the kind of world we want to live in.

            I hope that forced psychiatry and other forms of necessary restraint are not abolished tomorrow, because people would be hurt and even die. However, I do want to work towards a world where these kinds of restraint are unnecessary because we’ve addressed the other bullets on the list – i.e. recognizing the social and economic causes of people’s distress and meeting their basic needs. In response to NAG’s comment above, the ultimate goal would be for people not to become homicidal or suicidal at all because we would have dealt with the root causes.

            Pie in the sky? Definitely, but I find it inspiring and I’m signing. Hopefully, this movement is not rushed as was the closing of institutions. We should expect to see a GRADUAL improvement and movement in the direction of less mental distress and less need to restrain people.

            Report comment

    • I see that you may have the approach that harming them is better than not reacting irrationally. I liked Mr. McCrea’s comment instead, NAG. Your role is presumably to help them? “Meeting fire with fire,” usually leads to undesirable outcomes. Agreed? Or, maybe some in the field of mental health, should have chosen another field for their livelihood. Sorry if you feel that “the mentally ill,” are such a threat.

      Report comment

    • Clarification: If someone is capable of “caring communication” then of course, take that path.
      I’m trying to get at the issue of irrational, violent ppl, for instance, in domestic violence, women MUST be protected from the abuser. (I am saying that “domestic abuse” is criminal AND “mental illness.”)
      Someone who has repeatedly engaged in violent behavior would be better dealt with by “psychiatry” than prison, in many cases.
      That would not include excessive “forced treatment”, which is actually a continuum of methods, but if someone is violently mentally ill there is a responsibility to protect the public.
      There is middle way and nuance that needs to be addressed. It is not as simplistic as “lock em all up” vs “everyone’s autonomy must be OK”
      I am VERY concerned about the number of social media posts I see calling for “reopening the asylums” That would definitely NOT be the way to deal with these issues.

      Report comment

      • Domestic abuse is not a “mental illness.” It is a crime. Even by the DSM definitions, which of course are bullshit to start with. Of course, the whole idea of “mental illnesses” as discrete entities is kind of bullshit anyway. If you mean, “This person’s being irrational,” that’s quite possibly so. But then again, we’re all irrational to some degree or another, and it doesn’t make us “ill.” Confused, maybe, hurt maybe, angry, perhaps, but not ill. Emotions are not illnesses. Behaviors are not illnesses. Thoughts are not illnesses. They are simply the makeup of the human mind.

        Report comment

  2. I reckon everyone has seen the Fox and Friends segment which called for Euthanizing the “mentally ill.” I’m demanding equal time to respond to this at our local Fox Sinclair affiliate (WCHS) Charleston, WV. I have twenty-five years of teaching experience and won the recent Democratic primary for Congress. So I think I have developed a valid reputation to speak on this subject as a psychiatric torture survivor.
    Also, my wife and I will attend an appointment with my primary care physician where I will demand that the pernicious label of “Bipolar” be removed from my medical record.
    Any advice as I pursue these endeavors would be greatly appreciated.

    Report comment

    • I hope you are able to get equal time to address the horrorific idea of euthanizing the “mentally ill” which would likely expand to include the disabled.
      Good luck with your valid desire to unlabel your med record!

      Report comment

  3. In as much as I dealt with criminal forced treatment, by a now FBI convicted doctor. So I do stand against forced treatment.

    I did also help a loved one avoid getting unnecessarily overly involved in “the system,” who was more psychotic, unintentionally destructive, albeit not violent, than anyone I’d ever seen (due to a medical oversight, sleep deprivation, and alcohol encephalitis – not due to some unproven genetic issue). But, a respectful, albeit likely embarrassed, psychiatrist did help stabilize him in a manner I requested (no anticholinergic drugs).

    I think the problem is that psychiatry doesn’t look for the root cause of a problem, and wants to railroad too many they deal with into their “invalid” system for profit. But, when dealing with a person who understands the root causes of their loved one’s issues, and the criminal nature of “the system,” they become a bit embarrassed, and are respectful.

    So it’s likely a problem with the current psychiatric protocols, avarice, et al … but sometimes a person does need to be stabilized. So as to forced hospitalization (but I’m not advocating for the current “forced treatment” protocols), I’m a bit torn.

    My loved one is doing well now – he was stabilized with a low dose of lithium within a little more than a week in a hospital, and was off it not long after. So maybe we should be talking about the difference between forced hospitalization, and today’s bad “gold standard” psychiatric protocols of forced anticholinergic toxidrome “treatment?”

    Thanks for all your truth telling and advocacy, Will.

    Report comment

  4. I’m definitely in favor of seeking out “root causes” but since they can be of the spiritual realm psychiatry is not equipped to deal with it. There is no “incentive” for psych to go there.
    It sounds like your loved one was able to follow the path of BRIEF encounter with psych and move on.
    May it be so for many others!

    Report comment

LEAVE A REPLY