Publisher's Synopsis
As the law presently stands in a majority of states, a psychiatrist has complete authority to order an individual into custody without a warrant, without review by peers, without even seeing the person, and often without any more justification than a second-hand report that someone is behaving in an undesirable manner. Horror stories abound of men and women whose homes are invaded and who are thrown to the floor and literally dragged out their doors by police. As you will see, this same dynamic tragically played itself out in Charles' ordeal as well.
The so-called 'Section 12 commitments' in Charles' home state of Massachusetts have been the focus of a Boston Globe Spotlight Team Investigation. The Globe report indicates that involuntary hospitalizations have been on the steady increase for several years. It also points out the lucrative insurance money that is paid to hospitals in these cases. Whatever its actual motivation, psychiatry clearly profits by seizing individuals against their wills. This is an appalling conflict of interest.
As evidenced in Charles' case, patients in psychiatric hospitals often find the experience to be thoroughly demoralizing and spirit breaking. In order to be cowed into passivity, they are typically over drugged, electro-shocked, and deprived of all control of their lives. Even such ordinary decisions as when to eat, go to the toilet, or go to bed are made by others. Privileges are bestowed and taken away at whim as if the patients were unruly, nine-year-olds at summer camp.
In addition, the gulf between patients and staff is tremendous; patients are typically viewed as sick, untrustworthy and in need of constant supervision, while staff members, whose educational levels are frequently below those of patients, are seen as competent, knowledgeable leaders. Moreover, in order to be discharged, patients must adhere to the psychiatric narrative, including a false belief that the hospitalization has been necessary and beneficial.
