[coffeesque]

> That’s a very self-serving interpretation and I don’t understand why people don’t question it more.

People say "don't talk to police" because they can fuck you over, legally speaking. Regardless of whether you're innocent or guilty, you stfu when police are around

Psychologists can also fuck people over legally speaking (and likely will be able to even more so in the future), but the same standard doesn't exist for some reason, instead it's a bunch of people willingly talking. And there's also no due process either, the entire system goes around it

[faeriechangling]

This is a whole different tangent, but I could go on about

1: That psychiatrists can give you a lifetime diagnosis, without your consent to doing so, or agreement as to the diagnosis, with demonstrably negative social and legal consequences, without your consent or ability to remove the diagnosis from your medical history (barring exceptional circumstances). Being gay/trans already had to be removed as mental health conditions due to psychiatrists admitting they were only hurting them by labelling them mentally ill, but they fixed this by deeming these things as NOT mental health problems, but still not actually giving people the ability to refuse to consent to a diagnosis which would have prevented much of the harm to begin with.

This is then reinforced by scheduling and denying access to useful medicines like amphetamines and insurance coverage UNLESS you accept a legally and socially consequential label of being mentally disordered first, so even if people had the choice not to be labelled as disordered, they may not take it anyways because they will live a lower quality of life if they do not accept that label. I have NO idea how to solve this issue.

2: the whole involuntary hold thing. This I won’t get into that much, because it’s one thing to come up with a morally self-righteous take on this issue, and it’s another to deal with the reality that some people if left to their own devices WILL hurt themselves. Also there really is a lot of due process around this matter, the problems are really around the details and implementation. I have NO idea how to solve this issue.

[projectazorian]

> This is then reinforced by scheduling and denying access to useful medicines like amphetamines and insurance coverage UNLESS you accept a legally and socially consequential label of being mentally disordered first, so even if people had the choice not to be labelled as disordered, they may not take it anyways because they will live a lower quality of life if they do not accept that label. I have NO idea how to solve this issue.

Is an ADHD diagnosis really that "legally and socially consequential?" What are these consequences you describe, and how would one become subject to them?

I'm struggling to think of any real consequences, unless you are an airline pilot or have a security clearance, and even then I don't think ADHD is a deal breaker.