Ireland's mental health laws.

Typedef

You know the mental health laws in this country are a throwback to the 17th century.

If three Doctors say so, you can be incarcerated (without trial) for a period of six weeks, before the Inspector of Mental Hospitals will even review your case.

In practice this means that a private mental health institution (where the Doctors who decide if you are crazy or not also get more money, the more people who are in thier Hospital), can hold you, a citizen who has comitted no crime, has had no due process in court, for a six week period, where it is quite legal, to force you to recieve treatment.

"Treatment" can mean electric shocks, solitary confinement and the forced administration of drugs. Now call me a cynic, but people who have an economic interest in having 'patients' should not have the power to make the kind of judgement call that can 'require' a citizen of this country to be incarcerated, without the right to see legal council and without any kind of legal remit.

Don't give me "Doctor's act in their patients best interest", because in reality the reason this society has due process (instead of internment) is that the system is imperfect, due to humans being humans, however in the case of mental health, I feel it is too easy to label someone as abbarant and simply incarcerate them in a way that really abrogates that person's rights. This manner of arbitrary incarceration, seems to me, to me an anthema to the popular lie that 'we' live in a free and fair, 'transparent' society.

I just thought I'd share that.

seamus

Thanks for that Typie. That's......ummm......disturbing.....to know.

Surely they can't just pick you off the street and say "He's mad!" and lock you up? Do they not need to have some basis (endangerment, breach of peace), something, on which to consider first that you may be a bit strange?

If not, it's strange that no-one has ever brought this up before, but then I suppose anyone who does oppose it faces being labelled insane, or being burned at the stake for being a witch

Typedef

All that has to happen is for three Doctors (General Practicioners will do) to sign a cert and you can be incarcerated without any right to legal council and without any right to refuse 'treatment'.

So, one could technically be brought to John of Gods hospital for example, interviewed by three Doctors and be required to stay.

One can similarly be forced to have 'medical treatment' administered. Treatment can mean, forced injections, shock treatment, Lithium and a whole host of other not particularly pleasant 'treatments' and you, a citizen convicted of no crime, have no right to legal council, if you want council, you have to pay for it and your access to a phone to call legal council is at the discression of the Doctors 'treating' you.

The courts do not decide if this incarceration is right or just, the Inspector of Mental Hospitals does that and between the time a citizen of this country is admitted to facility (x) and 'whenever' the Inspector of Mental Hospitals gets around to reviewing your case, you, citizen (x) has no right to refuse 'treatment', no right to council and if the Inspector of Mental Hospitals says your incarceration is just, you, the citizen convicted of no crime, can be forceably imprisoned against your wishes ad infinitum, until such time at the Doctors deem you to have 'recovered'.

Nevyn

A wife may still be commited by her husband for assesment
against her will. And a Marriage maybe allnulled if either is considered mentally unsound.

eth0_

Typedef.....the fact is....no one is being plucked off the street by the men in white coats and never seen or heard of again.

You have to have DONE something to warranty assesment first.
- Generally a patient can only be sectioned if two doctors and a social worker or a close relative of the patient believe it is necessary.
One of these doctors is usually a psychiatrist. The other is often a doctor who knows the patient well.
An approved social worker also has to involved in the assessment, and has to agree that being sectioned is the best course of action for that patient.

Are you saying sectioning is completely wrong and that people like Ian Huntley should not have been sectioned?

The amount of people who 'slip through the net' is far outweighed by the potential lives saved/assaults avoided by sectioning the dangerously mentally ill.

As for lithium and shock treatments.....they're potrayed in a bad way in the movies, in actuality they're very effective treatment.

cujimmy

A wee bit of scaremongering going on here I think.
While I will be the first to argue that the 1945 mental treatment act is no longer suitable and that the 2001 act should be implemented, the facts on admission to mental health facilities and more importantly patients rights are as follows


Admission to a psychiatric hospital or unit
You may be admitted to a psychiatric unit or hospital as a voluntary patient or compulsorily. In practice, the vast majority of admissions are voluntary. Ten percent of admissions are involuntary

Voluntary patients
If you are aged 16 or over, you may submit yourself voluntarily for treatment in a psychiatric hospital, if it is considered clinically appropriate by a doctor . There are few formalities involved. If you are aged under 16, your parent or guardian can make an application for your voluntary admission. This application must be accompanied by a recommendation from a doctor. A voluntary patient may leave the hospital at any time by giving 3 days notice to the person in charge.

Involuntary patients
There are two categories of involuntary patient - temporary patients and people "of unsound mind". You are a temporary patient if you need to be detained for treatment but are expected to recover after 6 months treatment or less or if you are an addict who needs detention because of your addiction. You are considered to be a person of unsound mind if it has been certified that you need to be detained and if you are unlikely to recover within 6 months. Admission as a person of unsound mind is rare now.

There is a procedure that must be followed for the admission of involuntary patients.

Temporary patient
The person applying must fill in the proscribed application form. The application must be accompanied by a certificate from a doctor certifying that:
he/she has examined the patient
the patient is suffering from mental illness
the patient requires not more than 6 months suitable treatment for his/her recovery
the patient is unfit on account of his/her mental state for treatment as a voluntary patient
or
the patient is an addict and requires at least 6 months' preventive and curative treatment.

For private patients, the certification of two doctors is required.

The maximum time for which a temporary patient may be admitted is 6 months but if, at the end of that time, the Chief Medical Officer of the hospital or unit is of the view that the patient has not recovered, he/she may extend the detention by up to 6 months. The extensions may not be for more than a further 18 months or, if the patient is an addict, for a further 6 months.

Person of unsound mind
The person applying to have the patient admitted must fill in an application form for a recommendation for the reception and detention of the patient as a person of unsound mind. This application is made to a doctor who must, within 24 hours, examine the patient. If the doctor considers that the patient should be admitted, he/she makes the recommendation.
The recommendation must also contain a statement of the facts on which the doctor has decided and must distinguish between facts observed by himself/herself and facts told him/her by others. A person of unsound mind may be detained if he or she is not under proper care and control or is neglected or cruelly treated and it is necessary for his or her or the public's safety that the he or she be detained.
The patient may then be taken to the psychiatric hospital or unit (with assistance from the hospital staff or the Gardai if necessary). The application and the recommendation are then given to the medical officer in the psychiatric hospital for the area. The medical officer may, after examining the patient, make a Reception Order. If he/she refuses to make such an order, he/she must give a statement to the applicant as to the reasons for the refusal and this must also be sent to the Minister for Health.
If the patient is not taken to the hospital within 7 days of the making of the recommendation for reception, the recommendation generally has no effect. In certain circumstances, it may continue to be effective for a further 7 days but never for longer than that.
If the application is for admission as a private patient to a private psychiatric hospital or a health board psychiatric hospital, two doctors must make the recommendation.

Who may apply for the admission of a patient?
An application for detention as a person of unsound mind or as a temporary patient may be made by the husband, wife or relative of the patient or by the Community Welfare Officer. In certain limited circumstances, any other person may make the application.
A person applying to have a patient admitted must be at least 21 years old and must have seen the patient in the previous 14 days.
A Garda who believes that a person of unsound mind should, for the public safety or the safety of the person concerned, be placed under care and control may arrest the person and then apply for that person's detention. A Community Welfare Officer may also apply for the detention of a person of unsound mind where that person is not under proper care or control or is neglected or cruelly treated.

Patients Rights

Every patient has the right to have a letter forwarded, unopened, to the Minister for Health and Children, the President of the High Court, the Registrar of Wards of Court, the relevant health board or the Inspector of Mental Hospitals. The Minister can arrange for an examination of the patient by the Inspector of Mental Hospitals and can direct that the patient be discharged if that is justified. The President of the High Court can require the Inspector of Mental Hospitals to visit and examine any patient detained in a mental hospital in Ireland and report to him or her.
Any person can apply to the Minister for Health and Children for an order for an examination, by two doctors, of a patient detained and the Minister can, after considering their report, direct that the patient be discharged.

A patient who has recovered from mental illness must be discharged.

There are penalties for wrongfully detaining people in mental hospitals. Part xix of the Mental Treatment Act, 1945, sets out penalties that may be imposed by a court of law on any person found to have acted in contravention of the provisions of that Act. The Mental Health Act, 2001 provides that any person found guilty of an offence under either part 2 of the Act (the part that deals with the procedure to be followed in the case of an involuntary admission) or who is found to have obstructed the work of the Inspector of Mental Health Services shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of up to 1,904.61 euro or a prison sentence of up to 12 months, or both.
The Act also provides that anyone found guilty of an offence under the provisions of Part 5 of the Mental Health Act, 2001 (the part dealing with running approved psychiatric centres) will, on summary conviction, be liable to the above penalties and if found guilty on conviction on indictment may be subject to a fine of up to 63,486.90 euro and/or a prison sentence of up to 2 years.
Penalties will be imposed by a court of law.
Any relative or friend of a detained person can apply for the discharge of a patient and if the medical officer of the institution certifies that the patient is dangerous or otherwise unfit to be discharged, the relative or friend can appeal to the Minister for Health and Children.
These rights and procedures will change when the Mental Health Act, 2001 is brought into effect.

Appealing against detention
The Mental Health Act, 1945 provides that where a patient considers that he/she has been wrongfully detained, he/she (or someone acting on his/her behalf) can apply to the courts for a judicial review of the decision to detain, apply to the Minister for Health and Children for a second opinion or write to the Inspector of Mental Hospitals or President of the High Court.
Sections 259 and 260 of the Act provide that where a patient who was formerly detained wishes to begin proceedings in a court of law under the provisions of the Act, he/she may only do so with leave of the High Court and such proceedings must be instituted within 6 months of the last day of the patient's involuntary detention.
Under the provisions of the Mental Health Act, 2001, each decision to detain or extend the detention of a patient will be subject to automatic review within 21 days by a mental health tribunal, which will have the power to affirm or revoke admission or renewal orders and direct that the patient be discharged from the approved centre concerned. Where a patient is unhappy with the decision of the tribunal, he/she may appeal to the Circuit Court on the grounds that he/she is not suffering from a mental illness within 14 days of the receipt of notification informing him/her of the decision of the tribunal. Appeal to the High Court against the decision of the Circuit Court will only be allowed on a point of law.
Section 73 of the Act provides that civil proceedings may only be instituted with prior leave of the High Court. Section 74 provides that the new Mental Health Commission may initiate proceedings in respect of breaches of the provisions of the Act within 12 months of the date of the alleged offence.

Victor

Originally posted by Typedef
If three Doctors say so, you can be incarcerated (without trial) for a period of six weeks, before the Inspector of Mental Hospitals will even review your case. In practice this means that a private mental health institution (where the Doctors who decide if you are crazy or not also get more money, the more people who are in thier Hospital), can hold you, a citizen who has comitted no crime, has had no due process in court, for a six week period, where it is quite legal, to force you to recieve treatment.

I think you confuse "in practise" with "in theory".

Do the words €10m lawsuit mean anything?

Typedef

Patients Rights

Every patient has the right to have a letter forwarded, unopened, to the Minister for Health and Children, the President of the High Court, the Registrar of Wards of Court, the relevant health board or the Inspector of Mental Hospitals. The Minister can arrange for an examination of the patient by the Inspector of Mental Hospitals and can direct that the patient be discharged if that is justified. The President of the High Court can require the Inspector of Mental Hospitals to visit and examine any patient detained in a mental hospital in Ireland and report to him or her.
Any person can apply to the Minister for Health and Children for an order for an examination, by two doctors, of a patient detained and the Minister can, after considering their report, direct that the patient be discharged.

Notice here, that as the law currently stands, you a citizen have no right to refluse treatment at all. Hospital (x) can subject you to Lithium or Electro-shock therapy for a period of six months and patient (x) has no right to legal council. No right.

People accused of rape, murder and terrorist atrosities have greater access to legal council. So it is the contention of this State that Doctors are so infalliable, that it is acceptable to imprison a citizen of this country, and force 'medical treatment' onto that person and that the potential for incorrectness is far outweighed by the potential for correctness, however suspected Rapists, Murders and Terrorists 'somehow' should be apportioned 'due process'!

eth0
You have to have DONE something to warranty assesment first.

And innocent people don't run right? Well why not totally dispense with the Criminal Justice System? Since obviously if you have been arrested, you must have committed a crime?

By this criteria, the Gillford four for example are guilty are they not? Perhaps you should just concede that point now?

Generally a patient can only be sectioned if two doctors and a social worker or a close relative of the patient believe it is necessary.
One of these doctors is usually a psychiatrist

I notice usage of the words 'generally' and 'usually', but what I don't notice is use of the words 'always' and 'all the time'. Shall I tell you why that is? It's because the law simply states that the people in question have to be Medical Doctors, nothing more. Generally and usually just don't cut it. The problem with the Mental Health acts of Ireland is that it comes from a persumption of guilt (read insanity) where the patient must demonstrate that said patient is 'sane'. Again this is significantly less rights then are affored to suspected Rapists, Murders, Paedophiles and Terrorists. The Nazis captured after Word War Two, had the presumption of innocence and had access to legal council. If I were to take _eth0's argument, by virute of the fact those men were arrested, why, they 'must' have done something and should have been summarily executed.

Are you saying sectioning is completely wrong and that people like Ian Huntley should not have been sectioned?

I'm saying that 'before' a person, a citizen of this State can be incarcerated and can have 'medical treatment' forced onto that citizen against that citizen's wishes, that a court should deem such extraneous action in proportion to that citizens' wishes as being necessary, because if you think about it, forcing someone into captivity and forcing that person to accept medical treatment, isn't really something you want to get wrong.

The amount of people who 'slip through the net' is far outweighed by the potential lives saved/assaults avoided by sectioning the dangerously mentally ill.

Strange, the corollary argument is used for due process in criminal justice. People proport that it is better to allow one hundred guilty men to go free, then it is to convict one innocent man. I wonder if you, one, or anyone could actually resolve that seemingly glaring incongruity for me?

As for lithium and shock treatments.....they're potrayed in a bad way in the movies, in actuality they're very effective treatment.

Really? You know this as fact do you? Have first hand experience? Have you for example ever actually seen what a person looks like, after they have been drugged, brought off to a room and have had electric current passed through their brain (complete with gags to stop them biting their own tounge off), because the Doctors 'treating' them, have no idea how to 'cure' their illness?

Do you think this is a reasonable treatment to have a citizen of this country subjected to against their will, without so much as any form of barrister being able to intercede on their behalf? If so, why do you think potential Rapists should be given access to legal council, why not just simply caustrate them, before the trial?

Remember you can be detained and 'treated' for six months before the Inspector of Mental Hospitals 'has' to see you. So, is it the position of this State that it's 'ok' to deliever cursory punishment to some types of prisoners, but other types of prisoners (Rapists, Murders and Terrorists) should have due process?

DapperGent

Typedef do you believe that everyone in any kind of vague position of power is out to get you?

There are three doctors I know that are interested in making your acquiantance.

Typedef

yawn

DapperGent

Originally posted by Typedef
yawn

Indeed.

cujimmy

Notice here, that as the law currently stands, you a citizen have no right to refluse treatment at all. Hospital (x) can subject you to Lithium or Electro-shock therapy for a period of six months and patient (x) has no right to legal council..

You seem to be confused on this .The fact is that a voluntary patient can and does refuse treatment, a temporary patient cannot refuse reasonable treatment like lithium although lithium is used to treat depression and I have yet to meet a depressed patient refuse treatment. With regard to ect a person can refuse to consent to an an Anaesthetic and so end of story. and any patient has a right to legal council

Generally a patient can only be sectioned if two doctors and a social worker or a close relative of the patient believe it is necessary.

People seem to be confusing the mental treatment act 1945 (Ireland) with the english mental health act which allows for cases like ian Huntly ( I personally believe that in Ian Huntlys case that this was an abuse of the act)

cujimmy

Re ECT
As a mental health professional I personally disagree with ECT as I believe that its effect is not fully understood, that said I have seen people get ect and its not like you describe (which is more in keeping with one flew over the cuckoos nest) I have also seen people recover fully after receiving ect despite the fact that no drug therapy worked before.

hopefully the new mental treatment act 2001 which has been passed will soon be implemented.

eth0_

Hahahah dappergent you're spot on, methinks typedef has a serious case of paranoia!

Were you incarcerated over the weekend against your will dear?

And as a matter of fact, yes, I do have experience of mental institutions, and of psychotropic medication. Electro convulsive treatment is not something a doctor puts someone on a course of for the laugh. It's an absolute LAST OPTION in the case of severely depressed people who have not responded to therapy or medicinal treatment.

Seriously though, what is your problem? Why do you seem so het up this?

Typedef

and any patient has a right to legal council

Untrue. Your access to the outside world is 'discressionary' to the decisions of a Psychiatrist. Plus, you have no right to legal aid as a forced patient. Sure you can contact 'your own' legal representative if you are interned in this manner, but you (a) pay for that representative (implying poor people cannot afford representation) and (b) you are obliged to have treatment administered and you do not have right to refuse.

I literally know people who were threatned with being injected with their 'medication' if they did not acquiece to ingesting it. Now perhaps you think that, that person should have paid the legal fees to attempt to extricate themselves from that forced internment, but (a) that person had no money for a barrister and (b) it would make little difference if the medicos decided to forceably administer the 'treatment', since the drugs in question are quite powerful and by and large if administered in high enough dosages make the patient in question lethargic, indolent and generally docile and drugged.

I'm talking about Olanzapine, Lithium and a whole miasma of other drugs used in 'treatment'.

RampagingBadger

Typedef, how would you formulate a law to both protect the public from these people without such powers being bestowed on docters. The fact of the matter is that if such cases went to court the docters would be consulted and the court would almost certainly act on their recommendations. The effect here is the same, only it allows things to be done more effeciently.

Typedef

Typedef, how would you formulate a law to both protect the public from these people without such powers being bestowed on docters. The fact of the matter is that if such cases went to court the docters would be consulted and the court would almost certainly act on their recommendations.

Yes but, these people would have due process. The same due process that is afforded to suspected Rapists, Murders and Terrorists. I simply say that, before a person is 'forced' to accept Electro Shock Threapy or is threatned with being injected with drugs, if said person does not ingest those drugs, that a court of law should deem it necessary and that the citizen in question should have the same right to freedom and due process and any person who is going to be potentially incarcerated against their will.

Again, Rapists, Murders and Terrorists are given more access to legal proceedings and more right of appeal then alleged mental patients.

The effect here is the same, only it allows things to be done more effeciently

By that criteria, why not simply intern suspected Rapists? Surely that would be more 'efficient'?
Nobody has provided a good answer for that, if one at all.

Due process protects the innocent, but as the mental health laws in Ireland stand, only a random Doctor's decision really influences a "patient's" incarceration against their will.

Victor

There is one factor against your logic typedef, someone would have to pay for it and seeing as public mental health services are at breaking point, I don't see them adding random members of the public for the lark.

Typedef

Well perhaps by that logic, it would be more 'economical' to simply round up suspected criminals and summarily execute them Israeli style as 'criminals'.

It would certainly save the public expendature involved in running the prison service.

eth0_

Typedef - perhaps you should take your pills, no offence but you're sounding like a deranged granny on the fm104 phone show.

Where are you getting this from? No one insinuated it'd be better to round up and kill suspects.

RampagingBadger

I think that these powers are emergency powers bestowed on docters only for use in extreme circumstances. If a raging lunatic comes to the attention of the authorities he/she may need to be sedated both for their own protection and the protection of others. I have no doubt that due process is gone through before a patient is declared mad. I don't believe it necessary to involve the justice system in every case. Remember it's not a crime to be mad. Mad people arn't in the same category as rapists and murderers and I don't believe they should be treated similarly. If a person is "unhinged" the last thing they need is a stressful court appearance where they are publicly declared mad. I have a lot of trust in the medical professionals in this country and don't believe they'd ever use their powers for monetry gain. If the signature of 3 health professionals declare someone to be mad then I think that person would doubtless be mad.

Also I believe someone said previously that whether on not a person is mad they can't be given electro shock treatment without their consent. All that can really be forced on people is sedatives.

Typedef

think that these powers are emergency powers bestowed on docters only for use in extreme circumstances. If a raging lunatic comes to the attention of the authorities he/she may need to be sedated both for their own protection and the protection of others.

Then why not bestow Gardai with emergency powers to intern those who the Gardai deem to be Terrorists, Murders or Rapists?

I have no doubt that due process is gone through before a patient is declared mad.

Except that an involuntary mental patient has less right to appeal the circumstances and less right to defend their view then suspected criminals are given in this society.

I don't believe it necessary to involve the justice system in every case. Remember it's not a crime to be mad.

Well how convienent. It's ok to lock someone up, without a trial, so long as that person is 'mad'. Why not lock someone up because a Garda has deemed that person to be a criminal? Are Doctors so infallable?

Mad people arn't in the same category as rapists and murderers and I don't believe they should be treated similarly.

Funny that. 'Mad' people, by your criteria seem to have less rights, then people who are accused for forceful unlawful carnal knowledge or f.u.c.k. for short.

I really think you are making a sweeping statment to qualify a view you have 'already' come to here, as opposed to setting out the logic that has brought you to your view (ie) coming to a conclusion and then making an argument to support it, as opposed to allowing the argument imply the conclusion.

If a person is "unhinged" the last thing they need is a stressful court appearance where they are publicly declared mad.

Notice the use of the operative word here. 'If'. My point is that 'involuntary' incarceration is by it's very nature (a) Going to be stressful and (b) Abrogates the rights of the person in question in a way that murders in this society 'never' (because of due process) have their rights abrogated.

You say 'if and or but' a person 'may' be dangerous and it is your position that the Doctors who decide that are infallable and that 'due process' doesn't apply. I disagree, I think there should be one criteria by which a citizen of this State, one supreme method that citizen may have their free will abrogated by others and that is by action of the Courts of the Soverign State of the Republic of Ireland. I most certainly don't think that Doctors who are in most cases 'friends' of the family and who know the patient in almost all cases of involuntary incarceration (as the mental health professional in this thread has asserted) is an objective person to make a decision behind closed doors as it were. This seems like a process that is too subjective and too open to abuse with humans being imperfect as they are.

I have a lot of trust in the medical professionals in this country and don't believe they'd ever use their powers for monetry gain.

Really? Medical professionals are 'somehow' the only profession that has been able to keep itself above the foray of the proles? I think not. I hear this argument put forward all the time for a Federal Europe in a manner of speaking "All our politicians are ejits, roll on Federal Europe", the logic of course neglects the fact that "All politicians" not just Irish ones are corrupt. Therefore human nature being what it is I think you are being niave.

If the signature of 3 health professionals declare someone to be mad then I think that person would doubtless be mad.

And what if the signature of three Gardai were to declare you guilty of a crime? Say one of those Gardai were a Garda who knew your family and knew you, would you accept this as an acceptable mechanism for imprisoning you? I certainly wouldn't accept that criteria as a suitable method for imprisoning me. I hope you can see the disparity of logic there.

Also I believe someone said previously that whether on not a person is mad they can't be given electro shock treatment without their consent. All that can really be forced on people is sedatives.

With regard to ect a person can refuse to consent to an an Anaesthetic and so end of story

That is the pertinent quote. A person may refuse anaesthetic, if one follows the implied logic, I'm assuming you can't administer Electro Shock Therapy without an Anaesthetic, but the two do, not mean the same thing. One implys another (assuming the Anaesthetic hypothesis I have just drawn is accurate), but if, tomorrow there were an alternative method of adequately sedating or otherwise rendering unconcious a patient, then use of Electro Shock 'Threapy' if you can call such a pin the tail on the donkey method 'Threapy' or 'Treatment' then ECT would be an involuntarily administarible method.

I can tell you Lithium, Olanzapine and other drugs used by the Pyschiatrist are not pretty, Lithium in particular. In fact the whole notion of Psychiatry being used when Psychology 'could' be used is fallacous.
Why not 'require' a 'mad person' as you have so 'aptly' described these people (who I'd venture you have never met, but concede I could be wrong) to see a Psychologist? Has the State undertaken any objective studies to 'prove' beyond 'reasonable doubt' (there's that word again) that Psychiatry (use of drugs) is 'better' then Psychoanalysis?
Thought not.

Also I can tell you that from people I know well, the so called 'professionals' in some of the most 'reputable' hospitals are quite sparse with giving out information to involuntary patients and if you refuse to co-operate with the 'professionals' there is always the implied threat of 'forced medication'. Where forced means 'involuntarily administered'.

Try to imagine if you will, the fear someone feels when they are forced to go to a hospital and told that if they don't take their medication, that the medication will be forced on them, that that person has no right to legal council and that the best they can hope for is 'review' of their incarceration in six months time.

You quite piously tell me you have confidence in the infallibility of Doctors, yet you overlook nutjobs like Kavorkian, have confidence in his infallibility too do you? Oh perhaps he is simply the exception, but wait, that exception invalidates your rule.

Victor

Originally posted by Typedef
Then why not bestow Gardai with emergency powers to intern those who the Gardai deem to be Terrorists, Murders or Rapists?

But the Gardaí do have these powers - anything up to 7 days without judicial review.

Typedef

This disparity between a seven day holding and a six month holding where you can have medical treatment forced on you does not need to be highlighted to be glaring here Victor.

spod

I know personally several people quite well who have been and in some cases are still on Lithium.

Once the doses are carefully monitored with regular blood testing, the symptons, whilst in some cases unpleasant, are by no means intolerable.

Especially when you consider the huge benefit it gives.

Occasional shakes and nausea or severe black depression, mood swings etc.

I know which I would choose.

As for ECT I only know one person who received ECT in the '60's at some stage. Whilst it was undoubtedly unpleasant, and his short term memory isn't as good as it was, he's no longer someone who is permanently suicidally depressed and untreatable by medication. In fact he has needed no medication since the course of treatment and has gotten married, had a family, a good career, a good life so far and is now happily retired.

As horrific as ECT and Lithium can be they work. Anyone I know who has been treated with them has found them to be unpleasant but effective at curing severe depression, something which is far more unpleasant.