I think it's best that I don't get involved in this. I'm only going to say that the alternative to lack of informed consent is informed consent. And the alternative to psychosurgery is not doing psychosurgery, which I think everyone could get on board with.
I'm not going to come up with something different so that people can weigh it and dismiss it in order to rationalize what's already done as better or more "realistic." I'm sure if people thought about it they would easily come up with alternatives. It's not my job to do that for you, especially because asking comes from a place of challenge and adherence toward the status quo rather than a genuine interest or will to make change.
Don't quote this please, just think on it.
I can respect this and even agree with aspects of it but you have an assumption that challenging an idea must equate with rejection of an idea. Not so.
This is an issue, like yourself, is personal to me as well. I have been hospitalized. I have been on psycho-tropic medications.
I take this subject seriously. Which is why I prefer to scrutinize criticisms as well as suggestions. They have to have validity.
The way this particular argument was phrased was just bad all the way around. Too broad.
You want to talk about informed consent? Cool. Let's discuss that. Let's see where improvments and blind spots are.
I don't like the fact psychiatric drugs are used without conjunctive counseling for children in family courts. Where help isn't the main focus - minimizing liability is.
What can be done about that?
These are all valid concerns and great talking points that each could be a thread of their own.
That is how you start a dialogue. Not a blanket rejection of an entire field. I mean, you could but you can't blame getting a blanket response to it, either.
The argument has to be more specific.