It is a good point to raise, and it does not go away to say before 18 parents
are in charge and can coerce but after 18 the adult has complete control. There
are many exceptions to this rule and it does beg the question, what about the
mentally retarded, or people who act like children, or medical problems that
require decisions to be made by trusted family members or doctors. There is
nothing magical about being 18 in terms of competence. It is the time when most
people have grown psychologically and socially to make better decisions for
themselves, but not all people.

We make medical, economic and medical decisions for people that cant do it
themselves all the time. But here is the rub, if I am unable to make good
decisions, and I am incompetent, I trust my family to do the right thing. If my
family was going to lock me up or give me ECT or Psychosurgery that would not be
the right thing.

It is a difficult dilemma and not solved by saying that after 18 people make all
their own decisions whereas before 18 the parents are in charge. But It is my
view and experience that allotting as much autonomy over one's decisions is
often just good practice, for adults, (even kids in step wise fashion), and
adults s who seem incompetent or psychotic even. I have friend who helps
psychotics with living situations and she finds that they do much better when
they have control over most of their life decisions, money, living, going in and
out of hospital. Same with many Down's syndrome adults, who used to be given
little autonomy and now are doing much better then ever dreamed of. Thus, so
called benevolent control of impaired adults may sometimes be called for but is
a risky slippery slope which has often been abused by the state and family who
are not acting in the persons best interest.

But that said, there are many times when the state and trusted family must step
in and temporarily make decisions for adults; but that line is not simple. That
is my take and my attempt at addressing what I think is more than an either/or
situation.

Randy

Alan Forrester <alan_forrester2@...> wrote:
--- mirah@... 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 controlled by them.

Many parents do make and enforce rules for their children. You haven't
explained why forcing children to do things against their will is helping
them nor why refraining from forcing them to do things is neglect. You have
not explained what disanalogy there is, if any, between forcing a child to
go to a school he hates five days a week for eight hours a day and forcing
a mental patient to undergo outpatient therapy. I await your explanation.

> > 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.

So if a judge ruled a person incompetent because he is mentally ill despite
the person's protests to the contrary this is perfectly acceptable? We
should only be bothered by the fact that the labeller is wearing a judge's
robes instead of a white coat or whatever?

> 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.

Competence doesn't have anything to do with whether a person is wise or
foolish. Rather if a person can reply consistently to questions about what
he wants he is competent, otherwise he is not. If we adopt another
criterion we place ourselves in the position of imposing our own values by
force on people who have committed no criminal acts for having a bad idea
isn't the same as committing a bad act.

Alan

__________________________________________________________
Support the World Aids Awareness campaign this month with Yahoo! For Good
http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]