Alan Forrester wrote:

> You haven't explained why forcing children to do things against their
> will is helping them

I gave the example of restraining a toddler who is about to run into the
street.

> 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.

Your question was about competence, whereas your examples are not.
Outpatient therapy is forced onto competent adults, not incompetent
ones, which is precisely the point that Dr. Szasz repeatedly makes.

The disanalogy between education and psychiatric "therapy" is that the
former is legitimate and necessary, the latter is not. This again has
nothing to do with competence.

When a child hates school, there is a problem that requires solving. It
is the responsibility of his parents and teachers, who are charged with
ensuring his welfare, to seek a solution. The solution cannot be leaving
him uneducated and illiterate.

> 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?

My impression is that you are confusing the terms "mental illness" and
"incompetence". Precisely people considered mentally ill are unlikely to
be placed under guardianship.

> Rather if a person can reply consistently to questions about what he
> wants he is competent, otherwise he is not.

All right. Maybe that is a valid definition of competence. What do the
others on this list think about Alan's definition of competence?

> 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.

When adults are ruled incompetent and placed under guardianship their
ideas are unlikely to enter into the matter. In fact my experience is
that the judge bases his ruling on criteria much like you propose.

Suppose an incompetent person requires life-saving medical treatment,
say, antibiotics for pneumonia, but resists because he doesn't like
swallowing pills and needles hurt, or because he isn't used to it or
doesn't understand what it's for. I don't see how the guardian could
morally decide anything other than to go ahead with treatment, even
though that will involve coercion.

Mira