I'm going to make the assumption you're asking only about psychotropic drugs. Speaking as a Bipolar I patient, I'd have to say yes with reservations. I went off my Lithium 20 years ago and my condition worsened. I kept telling the doctors and family I could handle my disorder without medication. That was a big joke. I need it to stay stable. It keeps me from being depressed and not being hostile towards others where both could have strong negative consequences.
The patient should be well-informed about any medications s/he may take. If there are adverse side effects that could alter his kidney or liver functions, for example, that person should have the right to refuse BUT should ask what other non-threatening but effective drugs are available.
All this is assuming the patient is in a stable place where s/he is competent and alert enough to understand what medication is being ordered and can make the decision himself. If not, it should be up to the family or a patient's advocate to decide. Again, I have to make a huge leap and assume those people are not only aware of the condition and know what medications have been tried and why they are no longer effective, but also have been intimately involved with the care. The big question is, how many family members really know what's going on with a mental patient? Do they ask for periodic reports from the psychotherapist? Do they keep up-to-date with the prescribed meds?
If the patient is off the meds and poses a danger to himself or to others, than someone (again, a patient's advocate or a court-appointed guardian) has to make the hard decision that the meds are necessary for the patient's and others' well-being.
2007-12-16 17:23:33
·
answer #1
·
answered by goldie 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Everyone has rights until they are legally taken from them because they are not of sound mind to make a valid decision. If a mental patient refuses medication (refusing therapy) and interferes with his fellow man's daily life, the law steps in. If the mental patient isn't a menace to society, and doesn't take his meds, he is setting himself up for a horrific life that is only stressing himself out and not making strive on fitting into society.
2007-12-16 17:14:06
·
answer #2
·
answered by anaise 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I would say yes. If the ultimate goal is to have the patient be able to support themselves. If they cannot find and control the switches in their own mind then find someone who knows how to help them find it.
I think we go about solving mental problems the wrong way.
There are some things that either you must adjust to, or not live on your own.
For example, a broken leg may or may not warrant steroids. But what doctor in his right mind would give out a slew of pills without giving the patient crutches? Go walk now with those pills or be put in an institution for those with broken legs? It sounds ridiculous, laughable.
But we do that all the time with mental patients. Instead of helping them fix the source or learning to bypass that particular function, we drug them to the gills with stuff that could get you arrested for the same reason they hate it.
We simply do not know enough about the mind to tinker with it and force those with problems to go along with our mad experiments.
You wouldn't allow a man who barely can fix a lawnmower to play with your cars insides would you? Yet we do that with people, and try to give them no choice in the matter.
2007-12-16 17:37:14
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
This is one of the few GOOD questions that makes up for a good coffee table debate amongst friends--surely to have people voice for or against---w/potentially NO middle ground agreed upon.
Would you blindly entrust a mentally ill person to perform your quadruple bypass heart operation, entrust them to build you a safe/structurally sound home, or handle your millions of $$$ in high risk stocks on Wall Street??? I think the answer to all these examples likely will gravitate towards a resonant "NO!"--which is the logical answer for good reason.
Before you offer the stipulation of depending on what degree of mental illness the person has--a "case by case basis"; discrimination issues will spark here, causing further legal entanglements.
Beautiful as the concept of treating the mentally ill just like mentally healthy people is.....it's unfortunately NOT a sound or logically good approach.
We all can logically agree, I think, that a person whos mental illness does not allow them a clear sense of reality or reason cannot legally (for their safety) make serious judgement calls on personal issues--inculding those that may affect their physical health; and the right to refuse medication(s) clearly falls within that parameter.
2007-12-16 17:25:55
·
answer #4
·
answered by Mr. Wizard 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes! No matter how "mental" WE think they are, they are still able to decide for themselves. Maybe that particular medication makes them feel ill or something so they do not want to take it. I also know that some patients cannot make their own decisions due to communication issues. In this case I believe the institution should look into all the pros and cons and make an educated decision.
2007-12-16 17:13:11
·
answer #5
·
answered by Jaygrl2918 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
The real question is, what makes a mental patient? And where is the proof that any of the psychoactive medications have positive effects that outweigh the negative. If you become a different person on the drug, are you sure you didn't kill the real person? Not a Scientologist, just a jaded skeptic.
2007-12-16 17:12:00
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
You are legally allowed to refuse medication unless you are proven incompetent. Being proven incompetent means that you are a grave danger to yourself and others if not on the medication, and that you are not capable of controlling yourself or understanding the difference between right and wrong. We live in a liberal society where people aren't doped up on tranquilizers simply because they might do something harmful.
2007-12-16 17:17:06
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
yes, stipulated that 1. the person had the acumen to know what this medication does. and 2. as long as the refusual does not negatively impact the safety of others.
I guess a better answer would depend upon the medication.
If it were an antipsycotic (sp) drug, I would say no
but if it were blood pressure medicine, I would say yes!
2007-12-16 17:11:40
·
answer #8
·
answered by kissmymiddlefinger 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Tough question.
I'd like to say absolutely not, mostly because of a personal experience with a person who stopped taking their meds and got really scary and violent.
Then I picture people being force fed heavy meds...against their will...
I think it would depend on the mental illness and the patients behavior when they don't take their meds.
2007-12-16 17:12:26
·
answer #9
·
answered by heart o' gold 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Of course they should. Not all doctor's are honest enough to say a person is sane when that person differs from them, and if they are insane, how would they know enough to refuse.
2007-12-16 17:11:50
·
answer #10
·
answered by just another me 3
·
0⤊
0⤋