promotion image of download ymail app
Promoted
Angelface asked in HealthMental Health · 1 decade ago

Do psychiatrists HAVE to respect your first amendment rights? ( Scientology )?

I am thinking about joining the church of Scientology. I am currently committed and am being forced to take heavy neuroleptic anti-psychotic drugs. I was wondering if I do join the church of scientology, Using any psychiatric or psychology treatment would be against my religion!

Does my psychiatrist and the state have to respect that?

We are talking about my FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS!

6 Answers

Relevance
  • Lynn
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I looked it up and this is what I found.

    The United States Supreme Court decisions of Youngberg v. Romeo, 102 S.Ct. 2452, U.S.Pa.,1982, Mills v. Rogers, 102 S.Ct. 2442 (1982) and Rennie v. Klein, 102 S.Ct. 3506 (Mem), U.S.,1982, have been widely interpreted as holding that federal constitutional safeguards involving a person's right to refuse psychiatric medications are mostly defined by state law and that federal protection is limited to whether the treatment is "a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice or standards" (the "Professional Judgment" standard). Under the "professional judgment" standard, if scientifically invalid pharmacology is "accepted practice" then, it doesn't matter that it is invalid. Catch-22. For example, in Kulak v. City of New York, 88 F.3d 63 (C.A.2 1996), mentioned in the annotated list of cases, held that the involuntary administration of Haldol was a proper exercise of professional judgment. Ultimately, however, it makes absolutely no sense that "professional judgment" prevails when the professional judgment can be shown to be fallacious.

    It has been suggested that this is not what the Supreme Court actually held and that the Professional Judgment standard never was supposed to apply to forced medication cases. See, Reevaluating Substantive Due Process as a Source of Protection for Psychiatric Patients to Refuse Drugs, Indiana Law Review, 1998, 31 INLR 937. This view is lent great credence in the June, 2003, case of Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166, 123 S.Ct. 2174 (2003), which while a competence to stand trial case, demonstrates much less deference to "professional judgment" than has been suggested the Supreme Court held in Youngberg. In Sell, the U.S. Supreme Court laid down the following constitutional guidelines:

    First, a court must find that important governmental interests are at stake.

    Second, the court must conclude that involuntary medication will significantly further those concomitant state interests.

    Third, the court must conclude that involuntary medication is necessary to further those interests. The court must find that any alternative, less intrusive treatments are unlikely to achieve substantially the same results.

    Fourth, as we have said, the court must conclude that administration of the drugs is medically appropriate, i.e., in the patient's best medical interest in light of his medical condition. The specific kinds of drugs at issue may matter here as elsewhere. Different kinds of antipsychotic drugs may produce different side effects and enjoy different levels of success.

    While Sell is a competence to stand trial case, it is hard to see how a person facing forced drugging in the context of civil commitment has fewer rights. Moreover, all of these guidelines are basic constitutional principles that should be applicable to the civil forced psychiatric medication context. The question of what federal constitutional rights people facing forced drugging in the civil context have should be taken to the United States Supreme Court in an appropriate case. PsychRights raised these issues in an Alaskan case, Myers v. Alaska Psychiatric Institute, S-11021, which invalidated Alaska's forced drugging statute and required the court to find by clear and convincing evidence that in addition to all of the statutory criteria, the forced drugging is in the person's best interests and there are no less intrusive alternatives available.

    So.... in short, it would depend on your personal circumstances. If there is no other option available and you have met the criteria to be involuntarily committed, then apparently they DO have the right to administer these drugs. I suggest contacting a lawyer since you have access to the internet. Explain your situation and find a lawyer that only receives compensation if you win. No one here can help you and even if you are in the right, you aren't in a position to help yourself. You need legal representation.

    I also found this online:

    Can a person who has been committed be forced to take medication against their will?

    Neither an IEA nor a probate commitment is enough to force the committed person to take medication. Forced treatment of committed persons can only be given in three circumstances:

    * If there is an emergency situation where a physician determines that serious physical harm would be inflicted if treatment were not given immediately, a person can be given medication without their consent. However, they cannot be subjected to psychosurgery, electro convulsive therapy, sterilization, or experimental treatment of any kind.

    * If the person is considered incapable of making an informed decision, and there is an urgent need for medical or psychiatric treatment, such treatment can be authorized, but only after a lawyer is provided to the person and a hearing is held by the Department of Health and Human Services.

    * If a guardian is appointed by the probate court, the guardian can authorize treatment even if the committed person objects.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    It makes sense that as a psychiatric case you want to join a distorted sect like the scientology...I think your medicine aren't strong enough for you. You need stronger and better medicine, you're in a psychotic phase right now.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    They can not force you to take medication or undergo therapy unless you are threat to someone else, a threat to yourself, or if you have been declared incompetent and someone else is your guardian (this includes being a minor). If you have been commited then I assume that one of the above is the reason why.

    Why would you want to join that bunch of wackos anyway......... or are you thinking that it would be a way to get out of psychiatric treatment.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • HD
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Look up which of 42 states have forced medication laws. I don't know which state you are in. You see all it takes is two doctors saying you are a danger to yourself or others to keep you committed. They can also in those 42 states mandate outpatient medication enforcement. they will come to your residence and give you a biweekly injection. If you refuse they can put you in the hospital.

    Look up E Fuller Torrey.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Usually people are qualified to be committed AFTER they join Scientology.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Penises

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.