Should human rights be taken away from someone if they are diagnosed with schizophrenia?

cicerone imposter wrote:

Only if they are a danger to themselves or society.

I dissent from that as to "themselves"; everyone has a right
to be a danger to himself.
THAT is none of government's business,
nor jurisdiction.
David

Tell that to the government; that's their rule, not mine.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Only if they are a danger to themselves or society.

I dissent from that as to "themselves"; everyone has a right
to be a danger to himself.
THAT is none of government's business,
nor jurisdiction.
David

Distinguish between a legal right versus a moral/ethical right.

No, it's not; any doctor who diagnoses a patient with schizophrenia who shows tendencies to be a danger to themselves or others must report that to the police .

Does an unrestrained HIV+ patient have the "right" to bite a nurse, while hospitalized?

Does an unrestrained convict have the "right" to bite an arresting officer while resisting arrest?

When the patient first gets there, the nurses and techs do a regular intake and a psychiatrist or M.D. is supposed to show up ASAP to do a routine psych evaluation. Typically they'll ask the patient standard questions, as well as contacting family or others about the patient and checking medical records. However, there were times when no docs would show up for a while. In any case, almost EVERY time, the new patient will be put on a 48 hour hold. They absolutely can't leave for 48 hours no matter what. A 48 hour hold HAS to be done by a doctor, but they're allowed to phone it in, if necessary. In that time, a more thorough evaluation is supposed to be done, with several psychiatrists and other docs, and they'll decide whether to keep the patient longer or not. I do remember some rare occasions where a person didn't get a 48 hour hold. Usually this only happened if the person was just mildly depressed and it was pretty obvious (even to the techs) that they weren't a danger to themselves or anyone else. But like I said, it was RARE.

All of those things you describe (lack of logical thinking, driving without a license, etc.) could possibly be used as reasons or evidence that a person needs to stay in a locked ward, but it's ultimately the psychiatrists and doc's judgement.

As far as I could tell, the only time they needed to prove to a court that a patient was a danger was if they wanted to put the patient in a long-term facility.

A report from the web:

What about the medical rules concerned with "patient confidentiality"?

If an individual has suicidal thoughts ( that involves an act not harming any other person ), how does that become a police matter?