I have been asking that question my whole life, and even more so now with certain politicians and governmental figures.

Find a way of treating them and helping them to adjust to society without the use of coercion or a violation of their rights. That means giving them real legal representation, giving them access to courts that are open to public observation (mental health courts are NOT sufficient), giving them access to second opinions, and exhausting social supports (e.g. housing them in a safe environment) without imprisoning them.

The bar for being declared incompetent and unable to consent to treatment (which leads to forced psychiatry) is not high enough. Even coming from a psychiatrist, it is effectively hearsay in my opinion. There is not enough due process and outside oversight.

There are real side effects to psychiatry - it's called iatrogenic illness. When somebody is in crisis, what do they prescribe? They prescribe powerful drugs, usually neuroleptics. For example, tardive dyskinesia can affect up to 20% of people who take neuroleptics. It could be permanent - look up YT videos of those afflicted. It's easy to stereotype somebody as mentally ill if they develop TD.

It could be that somebody reacts nicely to the drugs they are prescribed. But what happens when they are released and can't afford treatment or become non-compliant with treatment? It can lead to disastrous withdrawal and terrible side effects, that can result in more hospitalization or a worsening of their illness.

Knowing that, why would you take away somebody's ability to not consent to treatment? Why can't we give them access to intensive therapy, that they consent to, that properly addresses the root causes of their illness and inability to care for themselves? Why do we treat traumatized individuals by inflicting MORE trauma on them? Being kidnapped, imprisoned, and medically raped is traumatizing. Why are individuals not given the option to not consent to medication, but only consent to therapy?

I invite you to look at Soteria Houses, which is a different model of care, that successfully achieves remission in those that are experiencing first-episode psychosis/schizophrenia. If they can achieve remission with little to no psychiatric medication (and likely no life-long prescriptions) in a severe illness, without coercion or locked doors, why don't we give more people the chance to experience that? What if they have the capacity to heal in a supportive environment that doesn't strip them of their rights - an environment that respects their will and autonomy?

I've been thinking about this.

There's plenty of delusional politicians who come to mind as well. It would also help enormously with public health funding .. lived experience and all.

People who slip by a day and just keep a mess tend to have support networks. If they're employed, they're not likely to get thrown in a mental health section in NY. Plus, again, this is New York, not Texas or Florida. Consider the context here. There's a lot of homeless people in the City who refuse care and get washed through the system. They aren't getting held in jail, but they're racking up fines, putting them further behind and worse off. Mandatory care is needed for some people. And we can't write laws to cover the corner cases without risking overreach.

Jail and asylums are very different. Jail is a tool for incarceration, it gives us systematic racism. Asylums are for crazy shit, it gives us LORE.