Involuntary Psychiatric Treatment: A Controversial Option in Mental Health
by Lauro Amezcua-Patino, MD, FAPA and Vincent Perez-Mazzola
In the field of mental health care, involuntary psychiatric treatment, also known as involuntary commitment or civil commitment, presents various ethical, legal, and human rights dilemmas. It involves a court-ordered process where an individual is evaluated and treated for a mental illness against their will.
This can take different forms, such as the often portrayed 72-hour hold in TV and movies, which detains someone temporarily to determine if they meet criteria for treatment, or in extreme situations, an involuntary commitment to an institution.
All 50 states and the District of Columbia have laws that allow authorities or civilians to place individuals in need of urgent mental health care into a treatment facility where they can be held and treated until they are no longer deemed a threat.
This article explores the complexities surrounding involuntary psychiatric treatment by examining its historical context, legal frameworks, ethical considerations, and the ongoing debates within the mental health community.
Historical Context:
Involuntary psychiatric treatment has been practiced for centuries, with its origins…
