Man, so many comments, so many musings about individual freedom and whatnot, and I have yet to see one that mentions the actual, and IMHU perfectly logical, criteria that mental care institutions use to decide whether to intern someone against their will:
"Is this person a serious danger for himself/herself or other people?"
Note that it's not the institution the one to make the decision, but a judge. And, also, taking completely someones freedom away is a very extreme measure that will only be considered for really extreme cases, there are a lot of middle grounds, from compulsory regular visits to the doctor to home visits from the doctor. But all of this, is not usually necessary because most of the people that are mentally ill, know that there is something wrong with them and will voluntarily seek treatment.
It's at least peculiar than when people from the US are asked about mental healthcare, their visceral reaction is "OMG!!! THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE AWAY MY FREEDOM!!!". So much fear, so little idea about how an actual mental care system works.
Source: exGF psychiatrist in a western European country with a strong public healthcare network.
In the US though there is a sad twist to this story. I know a family with a mentally ill adult daughter. They have health insurance, but insurance doesn't want to cover "unnecessary treatments." Sometimes when the daughter has had a psychotic episode or another acute difficulty, insurance has not been willing to cover inpatient treatment/overnight stays. On at least one occasion, the family has waited with fear and danger to figure out how she can get treatment, only to get the blessed call from the police: Your daughter hasn't hurt anyone else (yet), but she totaled her car/got caught stealing/got found by police in the street; since we've arrested her and do believe she's a threat to herself or others we can admit her on a 72 hour hold. And now insurance will cover it.
When compulsory doctor visits are not working, care is not available to those who need it in the US because of cost and insurance. It's not government taking away our freedom here, and it's a pity more Americans don't see this.
"Is this person a serious danger for himself/herself or other people?"
Note that it's not the institution the one to make the decision, but a judge. And, also, taking completely someones freedom away is a very extreme measure that will only be considered for really extreme cases, there are a lot of middle grounds, from compulsory regular visits to the doctor to home visits from the doctor. But all of this, is not usually necessary because most of the people that are mentally ill, know that there is something wrong with them and will voluntarily seek treatment.
It's at least peculiar than when people from the US are asked about mental healthcare, their visceral reaction is "OMG!!! THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE AWAY MY FREEDOM!!!". So much fear, so little idea about how an actual mental care system works.
Source: exGF psychiatrist in a western European country with a strong public healthcare network.