Posted by Squiggles on December 2, 2005, at 7:59:25
In reply to Re: Last resorts, posted by Ilene on December 2, 2005, at 0:50:30
> I also had ECT, BTW.
>
> I do not think a hospital, these days, would perform ECT on a person who did not give permission. For one thing, it is very expensive.Heh, that's cynical :-)
The giving of permission requires a person
to be in a relatively aware if not sane state-
that is what would disturb me.>
> If you are in a hospital voluntarily you can say "no" to anything. When I was in a psych ward last month I told them I didn't want to take a certain med (they tried to give me something wrong). They just said okay and wrote down that I had refused medication.
>
> If you are there involuntarily they can only keep you for a limited period of time. In this state it's 72 hours. After that, if they still think you are still a danger to yourself or others, I believe they have to go before a judge and you probably have a right to a lawyer.
>
> I.That's sounds reasonable to me. I am not sure
of the laws here and now. The state a person
is in when hauled into ER is what would concern
me; it may be the prime minister or it may be
a bum on the street - but either way they would
have to make a decision if he is legally insane
at that moment. If that is interpreted as
"danger to himself or others", then I suppose
they have to do something-- drugs? What kind?
If they work, then ECT becomes redundant.Squiggles
poster:Squiggles
thread:584162
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20051126/msgs/584447.html