Thomas Szasz and Civil Commitment
Thomas Szasz was very much against Civil Commitment (5150s) because he thought it was wrong to strip people of some Civil Rights before they had actually caused harm to themselves or others. He also believed that we should allow people to be themselves until they broke a law, then proceed with criminal cases (i.e., you do you until you break the law, then we take you to criminal court with misdemeanors or felonies, but no treatment).
Given what you've learned in this week's lecture, throughout this semester with each diagnosis, and what you came to the class knowing, do you agree with Szazs? Be specific in what you agree/disagree with and please explain your answer. If you agree with Szazs, then you must explain how society should approach individuals who are suicidal, homicidal and/or gravely disabled due to mental health issues in place of mandatory psycho holds.
Reevaluating Civil Commitment and Mental Health Treatment
Thomas Szasz's staunch opposition to Civil Commitment and his belief in individual autonomy until a law is broken pose thought-provoking challenges regarding mental health treatment within the legal system. While his perspective raises important ethical considerations, a more nuanced approach is necessary when addressing complex mental health issues.
Evaluating Szasz's Stance on Civil Commitment
1. Respect for Civil Rights: Szasz's emphasis on preserving individuals' civil rights and autonomy is commendable. It raises valid concerns about the potential misuse of involuntary commitment laws and the importance of upholding individuals' freedoms until they pose a clear danger to themselves or others.
2. Neglecting Preventive Care: However, Szasz's strict stance against intervention until a law is broken overlooks the preventive aspect of mental health care. Waiting for individuals to reach a crisis point before providing assistance may lead to avoidable harm and worsened outcomes for those struggling with severe mental health issues.
Proposed Approaches for Individuals in Crisis
1. Preventive Measures: Instead of relying solely on Civil Commitment laws, society should prioritize preventive measures, such as early mental health screenings, crisis intervention training for first responders, and accessible community-based support services. Proactive outreach and support can help identify individuals at risk and intervene before situations escalate.
2. Individualized Treatment Plans: When individuals exhibit suicidal, homicidal, or gravely disabled behaviors due to mental health issues, a person-centered approach to treatment is crucial. Tailoring interventions to address specific needs, providing therapy, medication management, and social support can help individuals regain stability and prevent harm to themselves or others.
3. Collaborative Care: Enhancing collaboration between mental health professionals, law enforcement, and legal authorities can facilitate a more holistic approach to crisis management. By working together to assess risks, provide support, and ensure individuals receive appropriate care, we can strike a balance between respecting autonomy and safeguarding public safety.
In conclusion, while Szasz's emphasis on individual rights is essential, a comprehensive approach to mental health treatment should consider preventive measures, individualized care plans, and collaborative interventions to support individuals in crisis effectively. By promoting early intervention, personalized support, and coordinated efforts among stakeholders, we can uphold civil rights while prioritizing the well-being of individuals experiencing mental health challenges.