Alan Forrester wrote:

> Does it mean that Szasz thinks that it is legitimate for parents to
> coerce their children?

I don't speak for Dr. Szasz, but i.m.o. of course it is legitimate to
coerce children. Parents make and enforce rules for their children like
going to school in the morning, hand washing before eating,
toothbrushing after, no candy before dinner, home before dark, bedtime
at eight o'clock, etc. Not to do so would be neglect. Wise parents
gradually transfer responsibility to their children as they grow older.
However, legally and socially people up to age 18 remain the
responsibility of their parents, and so controled by them.

> why would it be legitimate to coerce children but not adults who lack
> knowledge of the real world for reasons other than being young?

Szasz assumes that people who are labeled "mentally ill" or
"schizophrenic" or whatever variant thereof have not been ruled
incompetent by a judge, so they must be considered competent.

Incompetent adults are rightfully protected and coerced like children,
though of course not by psychiatrists but by their legal guardians. In
my country, the Netherlands, the law prohibits a helping professional
from being appointed the guardian of his "client". As usual, involuntary
commitment trumps guardianship, which proves that it is a power struggle
that has nothing to do with competence.

How we judge (in)competence and what we do with incompetent adults are
subjects that deserve a great deal more debate. I would welcome such
discussion on this list.

Mira