Over the past decade, medical professionals have made vast advancements in the field of mental health.  Mental illness has gained many negative connotations in the past and those who suffered were perceived as inferior. Depictions on social media and in entertainment showed the patients in a humorous or dangerous manner that falsely portrayed them as deranged. Mental health experts treated patients with violent procedures and used them for experiments against their will, which could be considered torture in today’s world. People viewed those who struggled with mental illness as insane instead of victims to a convoluted disease. While the general knowledge of mental health today has improved and our population is aware of the gravity of mental health diseases, the debate about forced treatment still exists today and will continue to be a source of tension. Legislation supporting involuntary containment and treatment of patients is currently implemented in many states which has resulted in both positive and negative responses.  The debate over where to draw the line regarding treatment of these patients is on-going and difficult to determine. The valid evidence and reasoning supporting both oppositions create a difficult argument and world-wide controversy.  Involuntary treatment on the mentally ill is not only a direct violation of human rights, it is inhumane and unethical in the medical setting.  While mental illness is undeniably a matter that should be addressed and dealt with, forcing patients into unwanted treatment is not the way to make progress. Overall, the damages of involuntary mental treatment outweigh the benefits in many aspects. 

Before people had inexhaustible technology and research at their disposal, society viewed mental illness in relation to evil spirits, dark magic, and being possessed rather than a biological disease (Blumer, Malcolm). Those who were considered to be intelligent doctors and mental health professionals conducted violently gruesome treatments and procedures on patients, “This led to attempts to remedy mental illness using medical experiments that might now be described as torture. Some particularly bizarre methods, described by Professor Scull, were designed to give people near-death experiences” (Blumer, Malcolm). Medical procedures including trephination, bloodletting, purging, and various drug therapies were only a few of the savage methods used (Hussung). Practices have changed to be much more humane and therapies are now based upon the concept of behaviorism over biology, but health professionals still believe it is sensible to force unwanted tortures on those who are combatting enough struggles already. In mental institutions today, many invasive therapies including electroshock therapy and forcing many medications on patients are still utilized. Doctors and nurses force a large amount of mind altering medications on the patients that results in memory loss and permanent brain damage (Sareyan). It is unfathomable that people can treat sick patients with such dire methods and feel that it is the best option available. Our society needs to recognize this malignant practice and hold the professionals accountable. Forcing inculpable patients into cruel consequences is incredibly inhumane and lacks morality completely. 

The primary goal for mental institutions is to create progress and help the patients, but that motivation does not always result in a healthy outcome. Many issues make the institutions a toxic environment for patients including overcrowding, ignorance by doctors and nurses, and malpractice. Patients are discharged from these hospitals in worse condition than when they entered due to the degrading treatments. In Alex Sareyan’s book The Turning Point: How Men of Conscience Brought About Change in the Care of America’s Mentally Ill, many stories are shared about the damages done to one’s health in every aspect after experiencing different mental hospitals involuntarily. Sareyan tells a story about a young boy in a mental institution: “He remained there for two and a half months because both the nurse and physician had forgotten about the incident, and that the boy was still there” (Sareyan). The workers from positions of low to high importance take disciplining much too far and are neglectful to the deprived patients. Long and extensive punishments are given for small incidents that cause more setbacks with the patient’s mental illness instead of helping them learn how to handle it. The institutions that patients were sent to comprised of incompetent workers and conditions, “No federal agency is charged with monitoring them. No national registry or organization tracks how long they have been incarcerated or why” (McClelland). The system in our country is so disorganized and chaotic that patients are not cared for properly because too many are held there involuntarily. The National Alliance on Mental Illness states, “The biggest budget cuts were made to long-term, inpatient care facilities. Vermont, a particularly striking example, closed its only state-run psychiatric hospital in the wake of Hurricane Irene. That means that much of the treatment of the mentally ill shifts toward other places in the health-care system” (Kliff). Massive budget cuts resulted in less qualified workers and reduced resources for the patients. Although the doctors believed they were helping the patients, they actually worsened the effects of the mental illness resulting in thousands of unresponsive or brain-dead patients after the operations (Blumer, Malcolm). Doctors and health professionals were disregarding their morals and ethics simply for the sake of success in the medical field or fear of the ill patients. People went through unimaginable pain and trauma that was not necessary in the first place. On top of experiencing the referred stressful procedures on their bodies and minds, patients are often misdiagnosed and treated with improper methods. In a video interview with a woman who has been through the mental health system in our country, it is explained how professionals will frequently diagnose the patient with the most obvious or initial disease and ignoring other possible options (“Forced Psychiatric Treatment”). The common malpractice by workers in the field seen with mentally ill patients raises the question against involuntary treatment because it is counterproductive to force something on someone when the results are more harmful than beneficial.

To most people, mental and overall health is a serious yet personal affair.  Treatment actions regarding one’s health are essential and not everyone is fortunate enough to have someone trustworthy of making those decisions on their behalf. In instances where people are involuntarily held and treated, the health professionals appoint someone to be in charge of the medical decisions.  Performing these treatments and procedures without the patient’s consent is a direct violation of human rights by putting one’s health entirely in the hands of another who may not be qualified. Our country’s societal views and practices about viewing the patient as a human being instead of an experiment have evolved for the better over the years. It would be illogical to regress and once again enforce the idea that all mentally ill patients are not capable of rationally making those decisions. Striping people from the right to make those imperative medical decisions contradicts the main principles of liberty and personal freedoms that our country strives to emphasize.  The cross between mental illness and the legal system has many flaws. Mentally ill people are being accused and convicted for crimes caused by their diseases, not their true intentional behavior. It is unfair to blame a struggling and ill person for actions caused by their mental illness, and those who receive fair judgement are sent to a psychiatry ward indefinitely: “The laws that govern the practice of committing people who are acquitted because of mental illness dictate that they be hospitalized until they’re deemed safe to release to the public, no matter how long that takes” (McClelland). While sending patients to an institution for help instead of prison is a positive aspect of American psychiatric laws, the system makes it nearly impossible to get discharged from the facilities.  While the defendant is deemed not guilty by the judge in court, sending the patient to a mental hospital may be another version of a life sentence but with mind altering medications and redundant therapy instead of prison life. The innocent and suffering patient should not have to endure the equivalent hardships to criminals in jail. Dr. Lawrence Stevens wrote an article exposing the issues with involuntary confinement and explains the dark side of mental institutions: “Of course, mental "hospitals" are jails for all persons detained there against their will.  Furthermore, they are places where people may be incarcerated with no showing of prior illegal or harmful conduct - only "mental illness".  Yet statutes professionals define it any way they see fit” (Stevens).  The author reveals how the vagueness of these laws that leave others in charge of someone’s mental health give too much power to the wrong party (Stevens).  Although some may argue that health professionals have a better knowledge of mental illness and credible basis to make judgements than the patients, it is clear that these laws attempt to justify the unfair removal of one’s rights.  These involuntary psychiatric treatment laws also tend to have specific targets and the institutions are used more as an easy solution instead of taking the course of action that would actually be most beneficial to the patient.  Stevens also shows how easily the power over a patient’s health can end up in the wrong hands, “Adolescents are committed by parents as a way of shifting the balance of power towards parents in intra-family conflicts, parents usually being the ones who have the money to hire psychiatrists to incarcerate their family member adversaries and define their opposing views and disliked behaviors as illnesses” (Stevens).  These psychiatric laws may do more harm than good, an example being the misplacement of power resulting in someone’s ill intended involuntary confinement for all the wrong reasons.  While the laws set regarding involuntary psychiatric confinement are intended to help the patients and their surrounding community, in reality they take an insensitive approach and do not take the patient’s feelings or wants into consideration. The current American psychiatric laws need to be altered or improved to ensure that the patient is receiving necessary, fair, and applicable treatment only. 

Crime and violent acts occur everywhere, but there has been a specifically high amount of tragedies including school shootings and homicides over the past few years. People argue that mentally ill people are responsible for these outbursts and contend that they would not have happened in the first place if these people were properly treated in the first place. The opposition reasons that to decrease potential crime from the mentally ill, involuntary confinement and treatment is obligatory. While prevention of violence is a goal our society should always be reaching towards, forcing victims into treatment is not the best way to achieve a safe community. There is not enough evidence to make a statistically significant argument that there is a relationship between mental illness and crime: “In a study of crimes committed by people with serious mental disorders, only 7.5 percent were directly related to symptoms of mental illness, according to new research published by the American Psychological Association” (Peterson). The alleged correlation between violence and mental illness is not a strong argument because of the lack of evidence and reasoning. The majority of mentally ill patients are not violent or dangerous in the slightest. The American Psychological Association conducted an experiment to analyze any sort of relationship between the two factors, “The study didn’t find any predictable patterns linking criminal conduct and mental illness symptoms over time. Two-thirds of the offenders who had committed crimes directly related to their mental illness symptoms also had committed unrelated crimes for other reasons, such as poverty, unemployment, homelessness and substance abuse, according to the research” (Peterson). While the claim initially makes sense and sounds logical, the lack of support invalidates that argument. Mental illness may factor in to the decision to be violent or criminal, but not the sole purpose and cause of the action. There are many other reasonable explanations for these crimes including stress and addictions as mentioned by the American Psychology Association research. On the contrary to popular belief, the mentally ill are actually usually on the receiving side of violence rather than the giving side, “The vast majority of people with mental illness are no more likely to be violent than anyone else. Statistically they're actually more likely to be victims of violence. But a small subset of that population, individuals who can no longer tell the difference between what's real and what's not, can be prone to violent acts” (Sullivan). Furthermore, there is no evidence of a direct relationship between violence and mental illness, making the argument against unnecessary containment even more reliable.

Refusing treatment is more complex than purely being delusional to one’s disease. The cost of treatment for mental illness is substantial. According to a research agency, “Separate research from the same agency found 45 percent of those not receiving mental health care listing cost as a barrier” (Kliff). While people may be aware of their mental issues and would like help, cost is a barrier that many cannot overcome. Mental health services are not covered by health insurances in many cases and patients can be charged immense amounts of money, “A quarter of the 15.7 million Americans who received mental health care listed themselves as the main payer for the services, according to one survey that looked at those services from 2005 to 2009. The majority of those who did seek outpatient treatment had out-of-pocket costs between $100 and $5,000” (Kliff). These financial stressors take priority over mental health in many instances because people have obligations to pay for. Forcing someone into unwanted treatment and then additionally charging them for it is unjust on many degrees. Involuntary treatment and confinement may worsen the patient’s conditions by creating debt and stress once they are released, which will degenerate any betterment made. 

 In the United States, one out of every five people suffer from some form of mental illness in various severity levels (Mental Health by the Numbers). Mental illness effects drastic amounts of people and many do not even know that their friends and family suffer every day. Mental health awareness is increasing all over the country due to more education in schools, advertising, and public places. The improvements made in the mental health community have been monumental when comparing the reputation from twenty years ago to today. Our society needs to continue that upward growth in order to maximize the amount of mentally ill patients are helped and the most important step is finding a more ethical and productive way to create progress. Current legislation, poorly qualified workers, and the lack of morals surrounding American psychiatric systems today prevent many patients from being properly helped. There are many outside factors that could so easily negatively affect the treatment of a mentally ill person. While mental illness is a chemical imbalance with scientific proof, professionals must take a different approach because these diseases are extremely different from typical physical diseases. Involuntary mental treatment and confinement can be a very outdated practice with little viable reasoning behind it. Adjusting the distribution of money and revising the technicalities of legislation will create a better atmosphere for patients and a better system to ensure treatment is received in a peaceful way.  If everyone involved in the situation would try to empathize with the patients and keep an open mind, our legal and healthcare system could find a more efficient and humane way to decrease the issue of mental illness. 
