You are taking your well-being, happiness and choices over your physical body into your own hands. What kind of country would it be in which everyone did that? In what kind of country would one expect those kind of liberties to be protected? How successful could it possibly be? Surely, there is noone who would want to stand up to preserve such a way of life. Instead, look to the Eastern bloc for inspiration and guidance. Look how much money there is to be made by being a facilitator as, while ensuring outright war remains too costly, the superior manpower of the East infests non-meritocratic governing bodies that increasingly exercise power over Western policy decisions - and let us always continue to give the science of mental illness our praise.
Psychiatrists don't play God. All they do is move people from the path of dangerousness to a different path. Its not murder if someone dies because of psychiatric treatment because, psychiatrists tell us, the person was going to die anyway. The psychiatrists know all about who will die and who will live and, like fpgaminer says, they're just regular saviours. I mean, the alternative would be to consider psychiatry as some kind of modern-day Roman Catholic Church - a group of trusted people holding esoteric knowledge that in reality falls apart at the slightest inspection but who have so far been successful at silencing critics, even violently, and are using the obscene and exclusive powers that they have granted themselves to become more and more wealthy and more and more influential in policy-making. As history shows us, this is highly unlikely. In fact, as psychiatrists themselves tell us, thinking that would be crazy. We must suspect ourselves and everyone around us except for psychiatrists, like healthy people. This is all perfectly logical because it is science and, frankly, it is surprising anyone would have qualms. Also, continuing fpgmaminer's thought, we must begin destigmatizing slavery. There are a lot of people who are fit for slavery but are resistant to it because of the stigma around conservateeship.
Highly regulated, not highly regulated. It's important people don't look too much into this defence because what matters is people get the treatment psychiatry says people need and praise be to it.
Absolutely! Sometimes for treatment the person doesn't even have to be depressed![1] Its like all those animal rights activists who get their knickers in a knot when a child dissects his pet dog. Don't they know that while it's alive there's more to learn?
(edit: "While it's alive" could be interpreted as meaning not to engage in invasive, involuntary treatment at all, due to its riskiness. This was not the intention. There's a sweet spot in one's learning where a subject will yield any information one desires of it in its attempt to prevent the inevitable, as concinds implies.)
Congratulations! If one is feeling depressed despite simply doing what everyone else is doing, that shouldn't be a time to start asking questions. There is no need to think about the effect one's actions are having. There is no reason to feel guilty for participating in activities that are causing avoidable harm. There is no reason or need to change one's behavior. Drugs, not integrity, bring happiness. Drugs will give you salvation.
We don't know much about Sarah, but we do know this:
She may not have given consent for this treatment; it may have been given by someone else on her behalf.[1]
Her current disease has no objective tests.[2]
Now if she wants to pursue the defence of her legal interests then oopsie! Looks like she's got a little remote-controlled electroshock device in the brainsie!
We would like to thank the NY Times for publishing this article and the commenters on Hacker News for allowing the psychiatrists to continue pursuing these activities.
Remember, it's not rape if you penetrate and deeply stimulate someone's brain directly!