Very interesting comments, Stephen– which seem to reflect how most people are feeling these days about Court mandated/court authorized treatment. However, it was not long ago that psychiatric institutions, doctors and State Hospitals lost everyone’s trust by forcing treatment on the inmates therein, and essentially stripping away any rights to self-determination (First Amendment) they might have had. It is from this history and this context in which today’s argument emanates (in part). For those interested, here is a link to an article that discusses the Rogers v. Massachusetts case which represents a land-mark case related to the issue of forcing individuals to take anti-psychotic medication:http://assets.wne.edu/160/13_note_Medical_.pdf
强迫入院接受治疗，还是让他们流落街头，承受饥寒交迫，还是承受被捕的压力和屈辱？Dr. Stephen Heelan, Ph.D, LMHC说：
Yes, the problem is paradoxical and difficult. However, isn’t it time that archaic legislature by uniformed legislators examine an often static resolve to a dynamic problem?（现在是不是适合用划一的立法来解决这个动态的问题呢？） To what point will catering to special interest groups impede professional morality and give pass to ethics?
I guess when a society can remove the “top down birds-eye view” to focus on a narrow ideology of what is the civil right(s) of the disenfranchised, marginalized, mentally I’ll human being in their totality, then the waters do indeed become muddy…
I think that if we commit to help, commit to improve outcomes, to offer reintegration back into societies for our severe, persistent, and chronic mentally ill then we need to be prepared to utilize what means avalailable. （如果我们希望提供帮助并得到最好的效果，让这些严重的、长期病患都能回归社会，就有必要利用一切可利用的方式）
Mental health tx in this country is often it seems akin to methadone programs for substance abusers…people are maintained, but few are cured.（大部分的病人都是在维持，而不是治疗）