Jeffrey Aho

Back when I used to be active in competitive debating I attended a lecture at LU on case construction. One of the concepts that I still recall is that of pairs of philosophical concepts which generally are opposites during debate. An example would be Justice vs. Mercy while the one I want to talk about in a very specific context is Freedom vs. Security.

The topic in which I want to discuss this dual with is that of Involuntary Admission, specifically in the case of possible harm to self. Suicide ceased to a crime in Canada in 1961, and within the Canadian Criminal Code the only mention of it is the criminalization of assisted suicide or counselling someone to commit suicide. What distresses me is that within the Ontario Mental Health Act (OMHA) there are provisions for involuntary admission on the basis of self harm.

I suspect that the vast majority of people believe that such a provision is reasonable, so I pose the question: Is it acceptable to hold someone against their will for something they have not done but on the suspicion that they may commit a legal act? I am taking issue here only with self harm as the act is legal while harm of another person is not. They are entirely separate cases. Harm of another person comes down to the security of the public over the freedom of a patient (another debate altogether), while in the case of potential self harm the claim is that security of the patient trumps the freedom of the patient.

Under the OMHA, revised in 2000 with “Brian’s Law“, physicians have the ability to hold a patient involuntarily for 3 days without appeal by just filling out a form, with the provisions for longer times with additional forms (though requiring another doctor). It is worth noting that the patient can refuse treatment during that time, so this can literally result in a patient being held in a locked down facility for having not committed any crime. An issue like this is about freedom of choice. We don’t lock people up for wanting to have an abortion, a self inflicted amputation of sorts (and I don’t suggest we do), but we do for the mentally ill. Such a law could impede assessment and treatment as a voluntary patient may sanitize his response in fear of being processed as an involuntary patient.

Some people may argue that such a patient cannot make decisions of freedom due to their mental illness. I would note then that such an individual is allowed under law to make decisions regarding their treatment. Why not allow the same of their freedom? A person with mental illness, even with suicide ideation, is still frequently capable of making rational decisions. There is a big difference between voluntary admission and involuntary admission in terms of freedoms for a patient. It is completely rational for a patient to want to perseve their freedoms while seeking treatment. To me, it is one who gives up their freedoms willingly who is irrational.

Currently Listening to: Lay All Your Love On Me - ABBA

Random Wikipedia Article: Sola fide

Tomorrow is the Ontario General Election and Electoral Reform Referendum. I encourage you to get out and vote.

I will be voting in the Oshawa riding because it’s my current residence. I will be voting for Jerry Ouellette and against MMP. I’ve decided to endorse the Progressive Conservative candidate because in this riding it seems that the race is between the PCs and the NDP (Sid Ryan) (Third is Liberal Faelyne Templer). As well, it seems that Mr. Ouellette is the most experienced, and has vowed to vote against faith-based school funding. I will note that CAW president, Buzz Hargrove has said that there is no reason to vote NDP.

Polls are now indicating that the Liberals will get a majority.

Relative to other elections, people are fairly informed about the General election and the issues at play. Outside the group of politics crazed students at UW it has become quite clear that few people know that we have a much more important decision to be made, that of the referendum on electoral reform.

For the first referendum in Ontario since 1924 (to repeal prohibition!) you’d think that there would be a lot more people discussing the issue. It’s likely a change in the electoral system would last much longer than the next government and if changed will cause a major shift in the composition of MPPs in the future. Unfortunately almost half of Ontarians say they don’t know about the proposed change.

The government has set up a website to try to present both sides and have mailed out information and have been advertising, but the message is not getting across. Questions such as how much additional will the new system cost are not answered while the entire issue is being overshadowed by the General Election. My personal thought is that regardless of the cost (and the savings due to holding the referendum with the election), it should have been held separately. A majority of the resources for the politically active are being focused towards the election while the referendum supporters and opponents are few and their messages aren’t being broadcast.

I encourage everyone to investigate both sides of the debate and encourage discussion in this last week leading up to the vote. Some recent Globe articles on the topic are here, here, and here.

What do you think?