Psychiatrists are trained to view involuntary treatment as an unpleasant means to a desirable end, a necessary evil. And we make the assumption that patients who are helped by the care they receive involuntarily will ultimately be grateful for that care.
Dinah Miller, MD, and Annette Hanson, MD, were inspired to write “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care,” when they discovered that this assumption is false, that there are no clear data about the long-term effects of involuntary care, and that many patients whose mental illnesses improved as the result of involuntary care were terribly traumatized by their experiences of being forced into treatment. In writing “Committed,” Dr. Miller and Dr. Hanson set out to understand those experiences, and the contexts, both psychiatric and legal, in which they occurred.
Dr. Rebecca Twersky-Kengmana
There are two main cases that help tell the “Committed” “story,” Eleanor and Lily. Both were hospitalized involuntarily for psychotic episodes; both improved psychiatrically because of hospitalization; and both currently are functioning well. But years later, Eleanor is still resentful and traumatized, and Lily is grateful.
One of the many strengths of “Committed” is in the open-minded, nonpatronizing way it approaches differences in perspective. Numerous patients were interviewed for the book, and their complaints are taken seriously, not simply dismissed as manifestations of psychosis or “borderline traits.” At the same time, Dr. Miller and Dr. Hanson are well aware of distortions and errors in memory, as well as misperceptions about care, and they share their questioning of patients’ stories.
Another strength of “Committed” is that it does not shy away from controversy. It takes an honest look at the gamut of positions with regard to involuntary treatment, from Dr. E. Fuller Torrey’s Treatment Advocacy Center, which takes the view that it is a disservice not to force patients who are unaware that they are ill into treatment, to the Church of Scientology’s Citizens Commission on Human Rights, which doesn’t believe in the existence of mental illness, and therefore views involuntary treatment as unacceptable under any circumstance. The authors genuinely try to understand each group’s rationale, but they are also courageous enough to state their own position: that involuntary care should be avoided if at all possible but is sometimes necessary as a last resort. They also make the invaluable point that simply placing someone in a locked ward, or assigning him to involuntary outpatient care, will accomplish nothing if there are no adequate services to support his long-term care plan, and that those services require funding.
The book’s one drawback for me is the authors’ choice to break up Eleanor’s and Lily’s cases into segments. I found it a little difficult to pick up where the case had been left off several chapters earlier. But the reason for this choice is clearly that it allows the reader to consider an individual topic in the context of that topic’s application to the main cases.
“Committed” is easy to read and well-written, even waxing poetic at times. In describing Lily, Dr. Miller writes, “Her right cheek was punctuated by the best of dimples.” It is written in such a way that it is easily understandable by a lay person but still has a plethora of information that will be new and useful to mental health professionals. In fact, I am flabbergasted by the amount of research that went into writing it.
Committed bravely addresses the complex question of what it means to take away someone’s rights, not because she committed a crime, but because her mind is not working “normally.” It is an excellent book that should be required reading for anyone interested in the concept of autonomy, which is to say, everyone.
Dr. Twersky-Kengmana is a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst in private practice in New York City.