Involuntary treatment: A misguided approach to addiction and mental health
With an election soon approaching, the Eby government's proposal raises concerns about its political motivations
Forcing individuals into treatment can lead to adverse results. (Pexels/Pixabay)
B.C. Premier David Eby proposed a plan last month announcing involuntary treatment of individuals suffering from severe addiction and mental illness.
While the intention behind this proposal may be to help vulnerable populations, it is a fundamentally misguided approach that threatens individual rights and fails to address the underlying issues at play.
At the heart of the issue is the concept of personal autonomy. Forcing treatment upon individuals who cannot ask for help themselves is a significant violation of their rights and strips away their ability to make choices about their own lives and health.
This loss of autonomy is not merely a legal concern — it has profound psychological implications, research by the Harmony Ridge Recovery Center found. Individuals who are forced into treatment may feel resentment, anger, and helplessness, which can exacerbate their mental health conditions rather than alleviate them.
The relationship between a patient and their health-care provider is built on trust and mutual respect. When that trust is broken through coercion, it can lead to long-term damage, making individuals less likely to seek help in the future.
The effectiveness of involuntary treatment is also highly questionable. Research shows people are more likely to respond positively to treatment when they voluntarily choose to engage with it.
When individuals feel forced into a program, they may resist the very help they need. This resistance can manifest in various ways, including non-compliance with treatment protocols or outright refusal to participate. Such outcomes can lead to wasted resources and missed opportunities for genuine recovery.
Involuntary treatment also fails to tackle the root causes of addiction and mental health issues. These challenges often stem from deeper societal problems such as trauma, poverty, and lack of access to quality health care.
By focusing on forced measures, the government risks ignoring the complex realities that lead individuals to addiction and mental illness in the first place. A holistic approach that addresses these underlying factors — through community support, counseling, and accessible health care — would likely yield better results than the proposed plan.
Another crucial aspect of this discussion is the disproportionate impact of addiction and mental health issues on Indigenous communities. Many Indigenous individuals have historically faced systemic discrimination and marginalization, making it essential that any treatment approach is culturally sensitive and community informed.
Imposing involuntary treatment can be viewed as a continuation of colonial practices, further alienating Indigenous Peoples and undermining their traditional healing methods. Genuine engagement with Indigenous communities is vital for developing effective and respectful solutions.
The timing of the Eby government’s announcement raises concerns about its political motivations. With an election on the horizon, the proposal may be more about garnering votes than genuinely addressing a public health crisis. Politicians should prioritize meaningful, long-term solutions rather than quick fixes designed to win support. Effective policy should be driven by the needs of communities rather than electoral strategies.
There is also a risk of misuse in defining who qualifies for involuntary treatment. The criteria for such interventions can be subjective and may lead to overreach by authorities. This potential for misuse not only jeopardizes individual freedoms but can also perpetuate stigma surrounding mental health and addiction, making it harder for those in need to seek help.
While the intention behind the proposed involuntary treatment plan may be to assist those struggling with addiction and mental health challenges, it ultimately represents a flawed and harmful approach.
By undermining personal autonomy, failing to address root causes, and risking further marginalization of vulnerable communities, this plan is unlikely to lead to meaningful recovery.
Instead, we should advocate for a compassionate approach that prioritizes voluntary treatment options, community support, and cultural sensitivity. Only then can we hope to create a more effective and humane response to the pressing issues of addiction and mental health in our society.
