Columns

Some parallels can be drawn between forcing women to carry pregnancies against their will, and forcing people deemed mentally ill to receive medication and other treatment against their will. There are parallels and there are contrasts. Forcing a mentally ill person to receive treatment is done under the premise that the individual, due to her or his mental illness, does not have the capacity to judge that they are ill and need treatment. On the other hand, forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy is done under the premise that the unborn fetus has the right to be born and to live, regardless of the consequences to the mother. This concept prohibits performing an abortion even in cases where the pregnancy poses a medical threat to the mother's life. Outlawing abortion doesn't say anything regarding the competency of the mother. 

(I am referring to pregnant women as "mothers" even though this isn't a hundred percent accurate. I would use different wording if I were able to conjure up a better phrase.) 

But even while the paragraph above draws a sharp contrast, I'd like to explore the potential parallels a bit longer. In both instances, an individual is forced to do or not do something against his or her will. In both instances, doctors are involved. And in both examples, the criminal justice system becomes involved when the line between doctors and police becomes blurred. 

In the case of mentally ill people, psychiatric practitioners, either a psychiatrist or a psychiatric nurse practitioner, is the main person who decides that a patient is incapable of judging that they need treatment. In the case of an abortion, a doctor is involved because they are bound by a state law prohibiting them from performing an abortion including when it is in the best interest of the mother. Thus, in the latter case, the doctor's involvement consists mostly of inaction. But such doctor is free to take other measures to protect the life of the mother and/or to bring some level of comfort to her. 

I've found that many psychiatrists are authoritarian and abrasive toward mentally ill patients. They'll just give orders forcing the patient to receive treatment, and at the same time, the psychiatrist may lack any kind of bedside manner. 

I can't comment about the bedside manner or about the sympathy a doctor may have toward a mother who is bearing a child against her needs, or toward a woman who carries a miscarried fetus in a situation where she is likely to die from this. I lack any knowledge of this. 

In the case of the U.S. Government forcing a woman to carry a fetus, I've heard the catchphrase: "Get the government out of my womb!" And in the case of a psychiatric consumer, the government is an unwelcome guest in our brains. Whether we are speaking of "right to life" or the issue of saving an unwilling psychiatric patient against their flawed judgment, force is used, and it is unwelcome. There are some people with psychiatric diagnoses who can buck psychiatry and can discover their own methods of dealing with their minds. I tried to do this, and I couldn't pull it off. But because I'm not under legal restriction, I can refuse a particular medication from a doctor, can refuse a specific "treatment", and I can switch psychiatrists if I must. 

The present-day alternative for an unwilling mother is to travel to a different state in the U.S. Yet that is about to change. If the court has established precedent that the fetus has rights, it logically follows that a nationwide ban on all abortions is coming next. 

I am male and will never need an abortion, and this undermines a lot of my ability to comment. Yet I am a sympathizer with women whose fundamental rights are being hijacked. 

If I'm not mistaken, a third of those with schizophrenia can recover without treatment. That one third is still being forced to take medication against their wills. "Treatment advocacy" means advocating treatment including when forced. The mental health consumer lacks legal protection and does not get an adequate opportunity to battle our insanity on our own. 

I'm not trying to say that it is a good idea for a newly diagnosed mentally ill person to be noncompliant, I'm not saying that at all. Yet I believe a middle ground could potentially be created that does not currently exist, one in which the consumer might be able to be in a safe place with our basic needs met and have an opportunity to sort through the mental havoc that assaults us, maybe not without medication entirely, but maybe with other meds that could simply help us remain calm while we look at the thought disorder within our minds. 

Very little is offered in the life of a schizophrenic woman or man. We are expected to accept living our lives in grossly substandard circumstances. We are expected to accept taking medication that induces physical suffering. We are told we will never amount to anything, and we lack opportunities for advancement in life. Very few self-respecting nondisabled women would consider dating a schizophrenic man. Schizophrenic women seem to fare better in this respect. 

The fact that mentally ill people do not have as many rights and privileges as neuro-typical people compares to the stripping away of women's basic rights and basic dignity. The idea of self-determination of the course of one's life in both cases is taken away. 

I don't need to tell you this: The Supreme Court of the U.S. has become a puppet of the ultraconservatives, and of Trump. The Republicans in Congress are puppets of Trump. For this reason, the U.S. continues to be in an immense power struggle. The outcome will be determined by how much abuse and stupidity U.S. citizens are willing to tolerate.