In article ,
 bh{at}cs.berkeley.edu (Brian Harvey) wrote:

> joshuaphill{at}gmail.com writes:
> >I don't know either, but it seems that we need a means of mandating
> >treatment for those who pass some kind of benchmark of severe illness.
> 
> Clearly people who are dangerous to others need to be monitored for
> compliance with treatment needs including medication.  But, as I understand
> it, the meds aren't very pleasant -- they leave you feeling dull and listless.
> This is why some patients stop taking them.  For those who don't pose a
> threat of violence, I have trouble with the idea of coercive treatment,
> although I don't like the alternative, either.
> 
>  
     It is hard to tease out the dull and listless induced by the meds 
from the negative symptoms of the disease itself. Other more established 
side effects include Parkinson-like symptoms, weight gain, sexual 
concerns, etc. (depending on the medications used). After 25 years in 
the psych biz, the real surprise to me is that anyone stays on 
medication. 
      The real problem is that you can't tell who is going to get 
violent (which is why I get a charge over all the English professors and 
others who can tell ahead of time that the killer du jour was going to 
do it with absolute certainty). Even on the psych unit with 24 hour 
observation by trained professionals, we can't say with any degree of 
accuracy who is going to get nasty and who isn't.
    Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about coercive treatment for 
grave disability or homelessness?
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32