|
|
In the debate of involuntary hospitalization, Thomas Szasz and Paul Chodoff hold rather opposing views. This is not a debate of facts, reason, or logic, though both these men, I fear, would violently protest otherwise, for they both present opinion and interpretation as such. The bottom line, as it were, is simply, how these two men perceive human rights, not as they are regarded by society, but how each believes they should be. Szasz contends that, “there are no mental illnesses” and that “no one should be cast into the role of mental patient against his will”. While Chodoff proclaims that, “mental illness does exist” and it is the duty of physicians to treat the ill, even if it is against their will. They argue over right and wrong, moral and immoral, just and unjust, but, the utmost difference in their perceptions of human rights, forces each on opposite sides of the question: should one be free of safe? Thomas Szasz exclaims his horror at “coercive psychiatry” and demands that its practice should be abolished. Because he believes that mental illness is merely a myth, Szasz is outraged that anyone could be held against his/her will in its name. He contents that “patients” are the mental hospital’s euphemism for “inmates”. Szasz compares these patients not only to prisoners, but to slaves, proclaiming that the doctors who commit patients to hospitals involuntarily, do so with the same paternal biases that were implemented by the owners of African slaves in America. Szasz explains that because the afflicted have deviated from societal norms and rejected conformity, these hospitals are used not to cure the sick, but that, “when such persons are hospitalized involuntarily, the primary purpose is to exercise social control over their behavior”. It is in this theft of liberty that Szasz finds an utter lack of justice. Paul Chodoff holds quite a different perception of involuntary hospitalization. He feels that it is the right of “the mentally ill to be treated and protected”, and that these rights are “being put aside in the rush to give them their freedom at whatever cost”. Chadoff carefully explains the criteria that should be used in determining weather or not to commit a patient, allowing little room for mistakes. Chodoff also makes use of case studies to provide his audience insight into the lives of the severely mentally ill, as to justify their confinement.
|
