Non-violent psychiatry could be practiced subversively

How non-violent psychiatry could be practiced subversively if psychiatric chief physicians wanted to.

Physicians’ meetings led by the chief physician are held regularly in clinics. As a test, but also as an offer to free oneself from psychiatric violence, the chief physician distributes a positive advance directive with the question of who is willing to sign it:

If no one wants to do this, everyone would have to participate in this subsequent “change of course” (see below) and would be freed from all judicial approval procedures and from the use of violence in psychiatry.

Only those, but only those, who are willing to fill out and sign such a positive advance directive, would not have to participate in the procedure presented below and can go back to their work, for example. Of course they can, also without pressure from the hospital management, continue to exercise their violent measures incompatible with human rights. The mental health laws permit this but do not require it. This fact should also be made known in a chart with portraits of the doctors in the entrance hall, like “employees introducing themselves with their special knowledge”.
If, on the other hand, all of them should sign the positive advance directive, they could at least make a profitable sado-maso (S/M) establishment out of a large part of the clinic and advertise it as “medically supervised” and even financed by the “health insurance”.

With all doctors who have not filled out a positive advance directive, demonstrating by that they only want to work in a non-violent psychiatry, it is agreed that whenever a forced hospitalization should be considered, a PAD is immediately presented to the affected person for signature. Such a type of a PAD must be used in which any psychiatric diagnosis is always prohibited, just as we use here in Germany. This would prevent any coercive measure and locking up of people (without their consent), just: Insane? Your own choice!
A copy of the PatVerfü is stored in the files, combined with a short medical statement that the person was or is capable of consent. Treatment is then provided as usual in open wards without doors that can be locked.

Thus, the closed departments of the clinic gradually shrink to a separate area for those who bring a positive advance directive or themselves suggest to want to sign one, or one could also say to a S/M establishment.
Only the patients who just want this from the beginning, can or should still be forced and can then of course also be forced in a way conform with human rights, just like in every S/M game.  Later, after the “recovery”, they can still revoke this positive advance directive.

All chief physicians who take part in a survey requesting their stand on using a PAD as mentioned above and who then refuse to change coercive psychiatry accordingly into a – at least partially – non-violent psychiatry, have then documented that they want psychiatry to be violent. There is then no excuse that they must exercise this violence. They just want to be perpetrators of violence. The power to execute coercion is their only rationalization for it.

Such an approach initiates – at least enforces – a discussion on the question of whether the mental health laws only permit forced psychiatry but rather do not require it. That is very important to depict the fact that typically psychiatrists are not compelled to execute violence, rather have an intrinsic willingness to execute their power violently. That leads to an essentially moral question, because using force to break the will of another (adult) person violates his/her personal autonomy.

See also:
An advanced training in the Bremen psychiatric clinic how a non-violent psychiatry can be realized in a subversive way