TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,883
In the recent times, I had an analogy of the way the IVC and psych holds are conducted in modern society (not just limited to the US, but in other countries as well) and how many of the proponents and defenders (also known as apologists) of such practices would really hate it if they were treated the same way. The analogy I had in mind was the "unsolicited house painter" analogy. (While I could come with many more different ones, I'll solely be focused on one the house painter analogy as it makes the most sense and as to not over complicate things). Ultimately, while the main issue boils down to bodily autonomy, which is the most important issue, there are other issues that this 'house painter' analogy will highlight and expose of the paternalistic, undignified, and traumatizing (for quite a few people) ordeal that unfortunate people end up in the system have to deal with.
Online and even in mainstream society, not-withstanding the interchanging of terms and semantics of the terms, 'psych hold' and 'involuntary commitment', regardless of duration, the practice and procedure that one is subjected to is often undermined, dismissed, invalidated, and even gaslit or shamed that such practices are 'necessary' or for their own good. Without getting too deeply into semantics, I will claim that one of the misconceptions is the view of people who are irrational and in need of such interventions are those of really bad cases, but in a lot of cases, particularly those who are even 'suspected of having CTB ideation or even planning on CTB' are aggressively intervened against or even those who strongly disagree with the status quo have such practices weaponized against them to silence, discredit, or otherwise undermine and shut them down, all without actual due process (unlike the legal system). Note: I am not solely referring to those who are at first put on a 72 hour hold, then brought before a judge to determine whether to extend the stay or free the patient, but those who are put on the civil hold against due process (because of a professional's 'opinion' or even the word/hearsay of a third party).
The unsolicited house painter analogy (one of many analogies)
The unsolicited house painter analogy is the analogy I realized and found to accurately portray and illustrate the ills of such practices. I will present in detail showing each step and aspect of the analogy as it correlates to the actual procedure and practices of IVC, psych holds, and such. I believe it correlates really well.
So imagine there was a house painter, but unlike most other trade workers and contractors, this particular one or group is presumptuous of their clients. Their (unwilling) client did NOT ask for said house painter to perform painting services on their very house, their deck, or their property for the matter. However, this unscrupulous and unsolicited house painter not only goes to the property uninvited, against the home owner's consent, and presumes that the home owner's property is ugly and needs fixing. Obviously the home owner would be upset and did NOT ask nor consent for it. But this house painter then decides to go ahead and just paint the deck, the house, and perform tasks that were never needed, nor wanted, all against the consent and autonomy of the home owner! Of course, the home owner would be justified in being angry (as many would be!), and then the home owner tells the person to leave, but instead they don't leave because they act presumptuously and continue the work while one of their other workers, (in this example, I'll coin the term – 'paint watcher', who watches the paint dry as well the quality of work being done by the painter(s), but also doubles as a security guard to ensure the security of the worksite) refuse to allow the home owner to interfere, preventing the home owner from protecting his/her own property that was serviced and worked on against the owner's consent. This would of course, be an egregious violation of due process, property damage, alteration without consent, vandalism, etc. Once all of that is done, the unsolicited house painter sends the home owner the bill for the unwanted paint work, the labor, the fees, the materials, and more, and expects the home owner to pay the bill, a bill that was never asked for nor the work ever agreed to. This is all because the unsolicited house painter decided that they knew what was best for the non-consenting home owner on the home owner's own property!
Recap showing the 1:1 analogy
So with that scenario laid out in detail, here are the brief rundowns of where this analogy aligns with the horrors if IVC and psych holds.
Overall, we know how intrusive, violating, and even traumatizing IVC, psych holds, and similar interventions may be towards people, and more nefariously when weaponized, abused, and such, especially against people who merely hold a different view on the philosophy and value of life, or hold differences of opinions (even if controversial or unpopular stances). Therefore, in an bizarre hypothetical scenario I presented in this thread is meant to illustrate and expose not only the hypocrisy and ill practices that these proponents support when it comes to IVC, psych holds, and similar interventions, but also the main issue of consent and autonomous choice when it comes to one's decisions in one's life. This means that they (the proponents, defenders of IVC and psych holds) won't tolerate the same/similar practices and tactics when directed against them in other situations (hypocrisy) yet they are going to sanction or allow such horrible practices when it comes to IVC and psych holds.
Online and even in mainstream society, not-withstanding the interchanging of terms and semantics of the terms, 'psych hold' and 'involuntary commitment', regardless of duration, the practice and procedure that one is subjected to is often undermined, dismissed, invalidated, and even gaslit or shamed that such practices are 'necessary' or for their own good. Without getting too deeply into semantics, I will claim that one of the misconceptions is the view of people who are irrational and in need of such interventions are those of really bad cases, but in a lot of cases, particularly those who are even 'suspected of having CTB ideation or even planning on CTB' are aggressively intervened against or even those who strongly disagree with the status quo have such practices weaponized against them to silence, discredit, or otherwise undermine and shut them down, all without actual due process (unlike the legal system). Note: I am not solely referring to those who are at first put on a 72 hour hold, then brought before a judge to determine whether to extend the stay or free the patient, but those who are put on the civil hold against due process (because of a professional's 'opinion' or even the word/hearsay of a third party).
The unsolicited house painter analogy (one of many analogies)
The unsolicited house painter analogy is the analogy I realized and found to accurately portray and illustrate the ills of such practices. I will present in detail showing each step and aspect of the analogy as it correlates to the actual procedure and practices of IVC, psych holds, and such. I believe it correlates really well.
So imagine there was a house painter, but unlike most other trade workers and contractors, this particular one or group is presumptuous of their clients. Their (unwilling) client did NOT ask for said house painter to perform painting services on their very house, their deck, or their property for the matter. However, this unscrupulous and unsolicited house painter not only goes to the property uninvited, against the home owner's consent, and presumes that the home owner's property is ugly and needs fixing. Obviously the home owner would be upset and did NOT ask nor consent for it. But this house painter then decides to go ahead and just paint the deck, the house, and perform tasks that were never needed, nor wanted, all against the consent and autonomy of the home owner! Of course, the home owner would be justified in being angry (as many would be!), and then the home owner tells the person to leave, but instead they don't leave because they act presumptuously and continue the work while one of their other workers, (in this example, I'll coin the term – 'paint watcher', who watches the paint dry as well the quality of work being done by the painter(s), but also doubles as a security guard to ensure the security of the worksite) refuse to allow the home owner to interfere, preventing the home owner from protecting his/her own property that was serviced and worked on against the owner's consent. This would of course, be an egregious violation of due process, property damage, alteration without consent, vandalism, etc. Once all of that is done, the unsolicited house painter sends the home owner the bill for the unwanted paint work, the labor, the fees, the materials, and more, and expects the home owner to pay the bill, a bill that was never asked for nor the work ever agreed to. This is all because the unsolicited house painter decided that they knew what was best for the non-consenting home owner on the home owner's own property!
Recap showing the 1:1 analogy
So with that scenario laid out in detail, here are the brief rundowns of where this analogy aligns with the horrors if IVC and psych holds.
- Coming onto the home owner's property without consent (equivalent to trespassing when mental health professionals send cops to a patient's home)
- Preventing the home owner from intervening (equivalent to involuntary stay and not free to leave (loosely speaking).
- Performing the work against the owner's wishes (equivalent to unwanted medical treatment and therapies)
- Sending a bill for the unwanted, unsolicited services (equivalent to the patient being billed for services rendered even though the stay was against the patient's wishes)
Overall, we know how intrusive, violating, and even traumatizing IVC, psych holds, and similar interventions may be towards people, and more nefariously when weaponized, abused, and such, especially against people who merely hold a different view on the philosophy and value of life, or hold differences of opinions (even if controversial or unpopular stances). Therefore, in an bizarre hypothetical scenario I presented in this thread is meant to illustrate and expose not only the hypocrisy and ill practices that these proponents support when it comes to IVC, psych holds, and similar interventions, but also the main issue of consent and autonomous choice when it comes to one's decisions in one's life. This means that they (the proponents, defenders of IVC and psych holds) won't tolerate the same/similar practices and tactics when directed against them in other situations (hypocrisy) yet they are going to sanction or allow such horrible practices when it comes to IVC and psych holds.
