TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,872
While this isn't a new topic, I actually had an interesting analogy about how IVC (Involuntary Commitment) is similar to false imprisonment and many violations of civil liberties and unconstitutional acts against a human being. I'm writing this thread to illustrate the horrors of IVC by comparing it to other scenarios in which one's civil rights and freedoms are violated. I hope this will expose the real horrors and also expose the hypocrisy in pro-lifer's logic. I seriously doubt pro-lifers would be ok if their rights were unconstitutionally violated especially without due process! Even though I have never been subjected to such treatment (if I was, I would probably already be dead, in prison, or worse, but I digress), I heard many horror stories and testimony from people who have been through the system.
What is IVC (Involuntary Commitment) or psych holds?
First off, let's describe what IVC is, from the process, to the treatment, and of course, the aftermath (consequences and fallout). IVC or Involuntary Commitment is where one is deemed to be a threat to oneself or others and are detained against their will for a temporary amount of time. It is usually for a short stay (up to 72 hours) and during the stay one is treated like a criminal albeit one has not necessarily committed any crimes or done anything illegal. When one is admitted, one is stripped down, searched, and then given a gown to wear and sent to a room with a bed. One loses many privileges and contact from the outside world (the amount of security and privileges depends on the facility of course). Typically, one is held there until they are deemed stable and safe enough to be discharged (released from the facility). During the stay, one is essentially reduced to that of a prisoner and at the mercy of the nurses, doctors, technicians, and medical professionals at whatever unit or facility they are at. They cannot eat, sleep, drink, or do activities on their own free will, instead they are put to a regimen of activities by the healthcare professionals at the facility. Then after they are discharged, they will not only have this in their medical record and background record (which will negatively impact certain rights and privileges), they are then saddled with a hefty hospital bill (in which they are responsible for). Sure, people claim "insurance this and that", but in simpler terms, the patient is still responsible for the bill for something they did not want or chosen under duress (e.g. when a patient is threatened with going voluntarily or being involuntarily taken against their will, which is really just a false choice as both choices lead to the same (or similar) outcome).
Furthermore, to quote another poster on SaSu, this post linked and shown below summarizes the subjective and political nature of diagnosis.
"DSM was described by one expert as "not scientific but a product of unscrupulous politics and bureaucracy," further stating: "In place of scientific findings, the DSM uses expert consensus to determine what mental disorders exist and how you can recognize them. Disorders come into the book the same way a law becomes part of the book of statutes. People suggest it, discuss it, and vote on it."[7] That's not science. "
This further proves that the DSM-V is a manual of subjective diagnoses over human behavior (quite a few of which are natural responses) to the environment around them and the circumstances that surround one's life, and an attempt to pathologize people who do not meet or conform to the experts or normies subjective way of life. The most disturbing thing is the weaponization of this manual of diagnoses in order to deprive another person's civil rights, liberties, and freedom without due process of law. Furthermore, even the treatment of people suspected (again, with no due process) of these diagnoses and behaviors deemed socially unacceptable is akin to those that are suspected of committing an unlawful activity despite the fact that there were no unlawful activity present.
List of things (comparison to violation of civil rights, liberties, and freedom)
Here are the things that would be akin to violation of civil rights, liberties, and freedom from the IVC and psych hold (PH) itself. Then I will use a similar example outside of IVC and PH for comparison.
(IVC, PH) You are automatically suspected of unsound mind and choices are made for you, and this is before being proven that you are of unsound mind.
Would you be ok if someone deemed you unsound of mind because of your (un)healthy lifestyle such as eating junk food, not exercising enough, and then decisions are made (against your will) for your diet and lifestyle?
(IVC, PH) You are given a choice to go willingly (voluntarily) or be physically detained and then transported to a medical facility (the hospital, clinic, psych ward, etc.).
Would you be ok if someone gave you two choices to comply with whatever their request is and if you refused, they would still follow through with their action, including using physical force to get you to comply with their demands?
(IVC, PH) Once at the facility, you are invasively searched during admission or intake, presumably for the staff, other patients, and the patient themselves' safety. Then afterwards, assigned a room and held there for several days.
Would you be ok if someone violated your privacy, invasively searched you and then afterwards, locked you up in a room (with some basic necessities and/or checking on you periodically to ensure you are alright)?
(IVC, PH) During one's stay at the psych ward, one is expected to follow the program set up by the mental health professionals and abide by them. Any deviation from it is met with varying degrees of punishment, including longer stays.
Would you be ok if someone decides how you spend your day, what you eat, how you go about your day, and then threatened you to comply with their demands or they use physical force to instill complicity in their demands?
(IVC, PH) Sometime after discharge, the patient now has a record in his/her background and medical history, which will show up in some background checks, thus affecting their civil rights, professional opportunities, and other social and civil consequences (not being able to legally own a firearm, cannot hold certain professional licenses, cannot get certain clearance for certain jobs/careers, not being able to adopt, etc.). But that's not all, then (in the US) they are saddled with medical bills for a treatment that they did not want (or chose under duress).
Would you be ok if someone decides to permanently bar you from a certain activity because of some subjective criteria and then after the unwanted treatment and service rendered to you, you are then responsible for the bill for something you never wanted to begin with?
Note: What I'm saying (below) in the following paragraph is aimed at pro-lifers themselves.
With all that said, if you (the pro-lifer) answered NO to any of those questions, then congratulations, you are a hypocrite! Basically you (the pro-lifer) would not wish to have any of these actions done against you, yet you would be ok with not only violating (including someone who is 'suspected' but not proven to be unsound of mind) someone else's freedom and rights in the name of safety and your own (subjective) criteria of what you think is best for them, regardless of their wishes.
Summary and conclusion
In conclusion, pro-lifers would never agree to these things done to them, including but not limited to, the violation of their free will, civil liberties, and other kinds of treatment against their will, but seemingly accepting of the same kind of treatment towards suicidal people (even 'suspected' ones). Therefore, this analogy also proves their hypocrisy, though I am preaching to the SaSu choir here. Let me know your thoughts.
What is IVC (Involuntary Commitment) or psych holds?
First off, let's describe what IVC is, from the process, to the treatment, and of course, the aftermath (consequences and fallout). IVC or Involuntary Commitment is where one is deemed to be a threat to oneself or others and are detained against their will for a temporary amount of time. It is usually for a short stay (up to 72 hours) and during the stay one is treated like a criminal albeit one has not necessarily committed any crimes or done anything illegal. When one is admitted, one is stripped down, searched, and then given a gown to wear and sent to a room with a bed. One loses many privileges and contact from the outside world (the amount of security and privileges depends on the facility of course). Typically, one is held there until they are deemed stable and safe enough to be discharged (released from the facility). During the stay, one is essentially reduced to that of a prisoner and at the mercy of the nurses, doctors, technicians, and medical professionals at whatever unit or facility they are at. They cannot eat, sleep, drink, or do activities on their own free will, instead they are put to a regimen of activities by the healthcare professionals at the facility. Then after they are discharged, they will not only have this in their medical record and background record (which will negatively impact certain rights and privileges), they are then saddled with a hefty hospital bill (in which they are responsible for). Sure, people claim "insurance this and that", but in simpler terms, the patient is still responsible for the bill for something they did not want or chosen under duress (e.g. when a patient is threatened with going voluntarily or being involuntarily taken against their will, which is really just a false choice as both choices lead to the same (or similar) outcome).
Furthermore, to quote another poster on SaSu, this post linked and shown below summarizes the subjective and political nature of diagnosis.
"DSM was described by one expert as "not scientific but a product of unscrupulous politics and bureaucracy," further stating: "In place of scientific findings, the DSM uses expert consensus to determine what mental disorders exist and how you can recognize them. Disorders come into the book the same way a law becomes part of the book of statutes. People suggest it, discuss it, and vote on it."[7] That's not science. "
This further proves that the DSM-V is a manual of subjective diagnoses over human behavior (quite a few of which are natural responses) to the environment around them and the circumstances that surround one's life, and an attempt to pathologize people who do not meet or conform to the experts or normies subjective way of life. The most disturbing thing is the weaponization of this manual of diagnoses in order to deprive another person's civil rights, liberties, and freedom without due process of law. Furthermore, even the treatment of people suspected (again, with no due process) of these diagnoses and behaviors deemed socially unacceptable is akin to those that are suspected of committing an unlawful activity despite the fact that there were no unlawful activity present.
List of things (comparison to violation of civil rights, liberties, and freedom)
Here are the things that would be akin to violation of civil rights, liberties, and freedom from the IVC and psych hold (PH) itself. Then I will use a similar example outside of IVC and PH for comparison.
(IVC, PH) You are automatically suspected of unsound mind and choices are made for you, and this is before being proven that you are of unsound mind.
Would you be ok if someone deemed you unsound of mind because of your (un)healthy lifestyle such as eating junk food, not exercising enough, and then decisions are made (against your will) for your diet and lifestyle?
(IVC, PH) You are given a choice to go willingly (voluntarily) or be physically detained and then transported to a medical facility (the hospital, clinic, psych ward, etc.).
Would you be ok if someone gave you two choices to comply with whatever their request is and if you refused, they would still follow through with their action, including using physical force to get you to comply with their demands?
(IVC, PH) Once at the facility, you are invasively searched during admission or intake, presumably for the staff, other patients, and the patient themselves' safety. Then afterwards, assigned a room and held there for several days.
Would you be ok if someone violated your privacy, invasively searched you and then afterwards, locked you up in a room (with some basic necessities and/or checking on you periodically to ensure you are alright)?
(IVC, PH) During one's stay at the psych ward, one is expected to follow the program set up by the mental health professionals and abide by them. Any deviation from it is met with varying degrees of punishment, including longer stays.
Would you be ok if someone decides how you spend your day, what you eat, how you go about your day, and then threatened you to comply with their demands or they use physical force to instill complicity in their demands?
(IVC, PH) Sometime after discharge, the patient now has a record in his/her background and medical history, which will show up in some background checks, thus affecting their civil rights, professional opportunities, and other social and civil consequences (not being able to legally own a firearm, cannot hold certain professional licenses, cannot get certain clearance for certain jobs/careers, not being able to adopt, etc.). But that's not all, then (in the US) they are saddled with medical bills for a treatment that they did not want (or chose under duress).
Would you be ok if someone decides to permanently bar you from a certain activity because of some subjective criteria and then after the unwanted treatment and service rendered to you, you are then responsible for the bill for something you never wanted to begin with?
Note: What I'm saying (below) in the following paragraph is aimed at pro-lifers themselves.
With all that said, if you (the pro-lifer) answered NO to any of those questions, then congratulations, you are a hypocrite! Basically you (the pro-lifer) would not wish to have any of these actions done against you, yet you would be ok with not only violating (including someone who is 'suspected' but not proven to be unsound of mind) someone else's freedom and rights in the name of safety and your own (subjective) criteria of what you think is best for them, regardless of their wishes.
Summary and conclusion
In conclusion, pro-lifers would never agree to these things done to them, including but not limited to, the violation of their free will, civil liberties, and other kinds of treatment against their will, but seemingly accepting of the same kind of treatment towards suicidal people (even 'suspected' ones). Therefore, this analogy also proves their hypocrisy, though I am preaching to the SaSu choir here. Let me know your thoughts.
