Conescending. I think so. Unnessasary and an accurate depiction of the attitudes of so called professionals with paternalistic notions of them knowing whats best for patients. Bring on the consumer movement. The faster consumer representatives are actually on the wards full time, the quicker we can be rid of arrogant attitudes centring on untruths and fallacies perpetuated by health employees, insinuating they know what's best for consumers, rather than informed consumers directing their own recovery and treatment. Seamus has made some excellent points, and as an individual with schizophrenia who has been incarcerated in hospitals, I can see exactly why Seamus writes with such emotion. Don't write us off because of emotive language, and I'll try not to write you off for your icily clinical self serving opinions.

There is a serious omission in this statement. I think "Shipman" is alluding to this point, however passionately, he brings up a worthwhile and significant problem. Secondary Traumatisation is a very serious outcome for a number of individuals who have been scheduled, or have been admitted as involuntary patients. I have personally, and professionally, been privy to the disasterous consequences of such dire actions. As I keep banging on, the article above and thousands more, clearly prove that persons experiencing mental illness are far more likely to be victims of violent crime, rather than perpertraitors. They are also more likely to be taken advantage of financially, sexually, legally, and myriadmore ways. The vulnerable in society are just that, vulnerable to those "normal" folks, who behave criminally, or simply behave badly with no psychopathology to speak of. Should we curtail the freedoms of the "normal" individuals that, although breaking no laws, ruin lives and wreak unhappiness, all through their own ignorance and selfishness? I well know how incredibly hard it is to care for someone with a serious mental illness. But I cannot advocate punitive measures such as involuntary committment, seclusion, and restraint, simply because their remains unbased fears in society of persons with mental illness. Involuntary comittment to cover a treating psychiatrists arse is simply not on either. If anyone cares to read some associated statistical analysis, most suicide attempts and successful suicides occur within a one week period of discharge from a psychiatric ward. These are Australian statistics. This points to the criminal lack of community resources rather than the safety mechanisms of the locked, supervised wards. Persons living with a schizophrenia psychosis are to all intents and puposes, completely undersupported in the community, as are all other individuals with psychopathology requiring health care in a community setting. To my original point, rather than adding further psychictric injury to the seriously mentally ill in our communities by inflicting trauma during involuntary admission, we should look at the reasons individuals who decline voluntary inpatient treatment do so. Having had many, many psychiatric admissions, I can think of countless reasons why an individual would resist a stay in a psychiatric ward. Looking to more respectful treatment during admissions, some actual rehabilitation or counselling (god forbid!), less restrictive environments, far better trained psychiatry staff, something to actually do on the ward when able, and generally an environment more aimed at hopeful recuperation, as opposed to a "holding cell" where patients tread water until the psychiatrists deemed the crisis to have past. While we’re there, lets loose the arbitrary use of the seclusion rooms, whereby nurses with a personal axe to grind, are able to inflict hellish isolation on those patients they feel may be "potentially" disruptive. I have seen isolation rooms and restraints, chemical and physical, used for entirely punitive reasons, and threatened when patients are simply "annoying" the staff. The use of security staff is way out of control also, and security are called at the whim of staff, for ridiculous reasons, such as moving a patient from one room to another, or from ward to ward. To say involuntary comittment is traumatic for some doesn't even come close, and is perhaps the biggest reason people resist an admission of any type.

This forum is for intelligent and rational debate by people who are knowledgeable in the field. I find your contributions entirely unhelpful. I suggest you read another recent article published in The Conversation called "No, you're not entitled to your opinion".

I suspect that we are talking about the same problem from various angles. What I am suggesting is that there is a need for a greater understanding of the interaction mentally ill with less so afflicted people in the community. My suggestions have been reinforced by close observation of some cases, at considerable expense in time and of some treasure to myself.

You are asking for better education of and understanding by the community and protection of such persons, I agree.

I have found in my area of expertise, that when the costs of pest/weeds in a crop are properly documented, management improves rapidly if there are any viable solutions. Likewise if the community is basically ignorant of the full ecology of the costs of some of the situations being talked about here, we will not object to the spending of > 900 mil on circuses (WA proposed stadium) and not on better managing the problems of the mentally ill, and their families, friends, acquaintances, co workers as well as any by standers.

Agree completely.

My comments below relate to the need to properly measure, document and discuss the impact of mental illness on the community. What you refer to is part of this cost, at least I can ask them to go home, yet many hours do slip past.

Fair crack of the whip! If the actions of an individual are such that it greatly interferes with the rights of others in a detrimental personal way what are you proposing?

I have merely suggested based on a number of observations made over some time, that when the community cost of the cost of mental illness to include and appropriate amount for the damages cause to others by some mentally ill individuals. That I used an extreme example, yes I agree.

I would agree with you re the rights of such persons, yet how to manage the obligations of those persons to live in reasonable harmony with those about them is also a part of this problem.

Unbelievable utter ignorant crap! This article is about the rights of a individual who is clinically unwell, to be free of incarceration or arbitrary abuses of their freedom. Schizophrenia psychosis does not abate for 30 minute periods to impede ignorant relatives of their desires to restrain the patient with medications for ease of "handling". This is mean- spirited and blatantly untrue, and lying for a condescending moment of recognition, is the manipulative way to comiserate with a fellow carer. I am a care and a consumer of mental health services, and I respect the individual I support, and others with similar psychopathology, and would never lie or derogatorily accuse him of maligering or feigning illness. As I previously commented, there are no restrictions on being a ignorant life wrecker. People without mental illness behave appallingly all the time, and we don't imprison them and forcibly medicate, isolate, or restrain them. In my personal and professional experience, it is those without the psychiatric diagnosis who repeatedly act disgracefully. A position of power or control, unbridled self-regard, feelings of superiority and a dash of self-righteous indignation are lethal and dangerous. All one needs to "ruin a life" is to be alive and breathing. "healthy" individuals succeed at this all the time. What is their excuse for this behaviour? A serious and life threatening mental illness? I think they do it all on their own, without any assisstance from a excruitating illness, or the disgusting treatment and attitudes endured by resultingly.

No, Mia...the families can be imprisoned, isolated, secluded, restrianed, abused and traumatised by their mentally unwell family member.

I would ask you to have some respect and undestanding for that.

I do not condemn the unwell, but when family members are unable to assist them, the families look for support from health professionals.

I'm not prejudiced, I am the adult child of someone who struggled with severe mental health issues involving violence, abuse and pshychosis for 12 years which ended in suicide.

So some restraint may be necessary sometimes to save a life. It is not done lightly.

Hi Sue,

On the other hand, drug-based chronic treatment of bipolar and schizophrenia may itself shorten life span, as the drugs promote food cravings, obesity, diabetes and fatal vascular disease. These unfortunates are lucky to make 60. Oddly, Robert Whitaker, in his revealing book Mad In America, claims to have found evidence that BEFORE modern drug treatment started, about 1953, a large minority [40%?] of untreated schiz cases eventually improved on their own, and seem to have got back to work. Older antipsychotic drugs commonly caused chronic unrecognized depression [low dopamine in the reward area], crippling the will to work. Newer drugs can do the same, at higher doses often used. Immediate assignment to personal care and diet, as in the Soteria House project 40 years ago, gave better results [back to work] than drug-treated controls. I still think lack of insight requires compulsory treatment, but this should consist of short-term chemical restraint, followed by long-term brain nutrition and personal support. There is no doubt that lithium, in bipolar cases, can now be replaced by Inositol, while the same anti-anxiety effects of this simple seed sugar may do much to reduce schizophrenia to its basic schizotaxia phenotype--a non-psychotic cognitive disorder that may sometimes require low-dose risperidone, if the patient agrees.