|
|
|
|
|
by DanBC
3874 days ago
|
|
> My wife and I have had this discussion; Under what conditions would it be OK to forcefully administer psychiatric medicines? That's a significant interference with a person's human rights, so it should be done as a measure of last resort, after all other options have been tried, and with a bunch of checks and measures built in. The person should pose an immediate risk of significant harm to themselves or to other people, and the person should lack capacity to make the choice. The people making the choice should be senior, experienced, and well trained. And after it's happened there should be some kind of case review to see if it can be avoided in future. For example, if the person became distressed to the point they are rapidly tranquilised the case review would look at behaviours of other people that created the distress. |
|
I know this entirely too well because my mother was violently murdered by someone off their meds and the doctors managed to decide that nobody was at risk in spite of her telling them she feared for her life.
So I'd be more inclined to say that doctors have good reason to make sure people stay on their meds and to change treatments to ones where compliance can be better enforced whenever necessary.