The Instigator
ESO
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
DaPofoKing
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points

Issue of State's Rights in Psychiatric Holds & Medicine (72 Hour Involuntary Holds)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/3/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,795 times Debate No: 3044
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (5)

 

ESO

Con

States, such as California and Minnesota have adopted laws that state that a single psychiatrist can place an individual on a 72-Hour hold if they believe s/he is at risk of harming him/herself or others. However, many states, and psychiatrists seem to abuse this removal of liberties.
Police can hold an individual for the common stress-related threat that many make each day, "I'm going to kill myself." Once on a hold a doctor/nurse can administer any medicine or treatment against the patient or family's will. The reasoning behind this is that a patient isn't in the mindset to make a smart decision concerning his or her well-being. In fact, many doctors and nurses refuse "bedside manner" to patients because they appear "crazy." Once detached emotionally these medical personnel no longer provide a basic, concerned level of patient treatment. If a patient refuses treatment, the physician then has the "cause" to hold a patient beyond 72 Hours. The holds due have increments, but can be limitless, meaning someone could be held against their will for up to 6 months or longer.
Virtually all patient rights are removed during this 72 Hour period (based on one sole physician's diagnosis). These include the right to privacy, baseless searches, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to information, and simple self liberties such as showering/bathing, eating, or drinking water.
The other problem with these laws is that former threats can be taken as current ones. If a patient said "I'm going to kill myself" weeks ago it can be construed to mean that they're going to kill themselves tonight and that is probable cause for a hold.
Many physicians have made mis-diagnoses in their lifetimes. 72 Hour holds allow for a patient to speak to a judge, however, because of constraints on the court system most holds expire before a hearing is even scheduled.

With all the potential for abuse the the holding of innocents for no other reason than a physician's opinion (not the state's, not the jury's, not the family's) there is no need for a law that so strictly restricts freedom. Giving a doctor the power to suspend free will is absurd. Police officers and military still have operational guidelines and are held much more accountable if they choose to use such force or restrictions.
I believe all laws of such nature should be challenged as unconstitutional or be amended with wording allowing challenges from patient or patient's family to be considered before a hold is put in place. Furthermore, all doctor's and psychiatrist's responsible for placing such holds on patients should be audited afterwards with a careful evaluation of the patient and the figure recommending the hold should be held accountable if a mis-diagnosis or emotional trauma was suffered.
DaPofoKing

Pro

DaPofoKing forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 1
ESO

Con

My opponent did not take the time to create a counter argument in this round. So I have no claims or point in which to respond.

However, I would still like to clarify the severity of these laws and their consequences. A practicing physician can hold you, against your will, for any particular reason, and remove all of your rights (even the most basic human rights such as going outside or using the bathroom) and no resulting measure can be placed against them, except for a "warning" letter from the patient to the State Board of Medicine and/or Psychology.

I am completely saddened by the fact that such laws exist in our nation and our states. I won't take the lack of response by my felow debater as though he had no evidence to provide an argument, however, I do believe it will be very tough to present evidence to the contrary.
DaPofoKing

Pro

DaPofoKing forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
ESO

Con

My opponent once again failed to post any sort of comment, question, or counter-point as to why he chose to debate me or even agrees with his position that the state should be able to remove all rights from a patient or person based only upon one doctor's evaluation.

I was looking forward to a good spirited debate over this issue as I have experienced, through volunteer work, the devastation, anger, and hostility it can cause on a person's life. Unfortunately, I feel as though my time has only been spent letting readers know the facts about betrayal in the medical field, and not letting them hear any counter-points to the argument.

If there are any remaining questions (from readers) about the issue feel free to contact me or comment below and I will respond helping you clarify anything.
DaPofoKing

Pro

DaPofoKing forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Danielle 9 years ago
Danielle
I'd love to debate but I can't ~ I completely agree with Eso.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by aodanu16 9 years ago
aodanu16
ESODaPofoKingTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by twinkiesunite 9 years ago
twinkiesunite
ESODaPofoKingTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by ESO 9 years ago
ESO
ESODaPofoKingTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 9 years ago
Johnicle
ESODaPofoKingTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by liberalconservative 9 years ago
liberalconservative
ESODaPofoKingTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03