|
|
|
|
|
by SamoyedFurFluff
1736 days ago
|
|
Not all antipsychotics have horrible side effects. Let’s not lose nuance in response to the terrible unethical behavior depicted here. Modern antipsychotics often do good in helping people function when they wouldn’t otherwise be able to. The illnesses they treat are ones of terror and loneliness. I will note however that there’s no purpose in them here except to force submission, and that’s abuse and spits on the good that can be done. |
|
The issue is as you note in this instance, their use for something otherwise, that is, to force submission to make others' lives easier. It is not just in care homes that they are used for this purpose. Psychiatry as is practised within institutions such as prisons, schools, or care homes, serves as a way to legitimize dealing with difficult people using forced or coerced drugging, something we would not otherwise accept on the face of it. I don't see any good solution to this issue, especially not in the case of a care home where many residents will be deemed by all to not have capacity. Oversight can only do so much and when there are loopholes like the three excepted diagnoses mentioned in the article being exempted from public tallies, incentives will do the rest to close it.
EDIT: I'd like to add I have considered a bit more about other people I know who have taken or are taking antipsychotics (voluntarily), and they have never expressed extreme distress at their side effects. So I should have said 'can have' rather than 'have', my initial wording being influenced by my own experience.