(cross-posted from Beyond Vermont State Hospital (VSH) blog, here)

Within the two-year legislative session that recently ended, the State of Vermont once again attempted to make it both easier and quicker to impose its will upon people who come within the mental health system concerning what it perceives and terms as being a necessary form of treatment (here; via ACLU-VT legislative update).

It should also be noted that the context of these efforts were addressing non-emergency settings only and not emergency situations.

In fact the Agency of Human Services (VT AHS) and the Department of Mental Health (VT DMH) tried to sneak it in as part of the Challenges for Change 2 bill (the legislature declined doing so however).

That stated, rather than focus on those efforts and how they played out, I will instead speak to the use of language and what appears to be behind such as well as some of its consequences, relating to the use of the term involuntary within the context of mental health treatment settings.

When it comes to the use of force and violence imposed by the state upon persons in any mental health or behavioral treatment setting (i.e., institutional or community), the jargon usually employed is involuntary treatment as well as involuntary medication.

These uses of the term involuntary makes such actions against individuals much more socially acceptable and also causes many people to further their beliefs that whomever is on the receiving end must be well deserving, oftentimes without any questions or concerns being raised (read: deliberate indifference).

Although it might be true that definitions of the term involuntary include any action done against the will of an individual, not willing or voluntary or, put another way, something done without the informed consent of the individual upon whom an action is taken, it is also true that the term is defined as an action having been without intention or done unintentionally, etc.

The truth of the matter is that when the state inflicts its will upon individual persons in this fashion, it involves outright force and violence as well as degradation inflicted upon the person.

It might not be desirable for someone to be locked up against one’s will for any length of time, however it is even worse to be drugged and otherwise receive treatment (e.g., shock treatment, also referred to as ECT) in such a manner; which can often happen by the use of rubber stamp court appointed guardians that the state recruits for these purposes so they can get their way, if they cannot do so otherwise.

Many of those who have undergone force drugging and treatment compare it to no less than rape.

Not only have I heard people refer to forced drugging as such, but I have also witnessed the obvious and sometimes not so obvious wounds and scars caused to their emotional health and soul.

This makes one wonder why, if it would of course be totally unacceptable among most people within our society to term either sexual molestation or rape as being involuntary touching or involuntary sex, why is it then permissible as well as acceptable — simply due to it being done on behalf of the state — to term forced drugging and forced treatment as being involuntary medication and involuntary treatment?

Such actions taken against citizens by the state should rather be understood as well as termed what they indeed are: i.e., forced drugging and forced treatment.

It should also be noted that none of this is about the use of politically correct language either.

Instead, what this is about is calling things what they truly are, as well as, defending the civil rights of all citizens, including those whom some in society would like be kept out of sight, out of mind (sometimes quite literally, or so it seems).

If you have not already done so, please read related commentary of mine, here (via Beyond VSH blog).