Description: Humane Treatment of the Mentally-Ill

Resolved, all countries that are members of UN be required to treat citizens who are mentally-ill humanely.

A mental illness is defined as a psychiatric disorder that results in a disruption in a person's thinking, feeling, moods, and ability to relate to others.

This proposal would include a ban on physical abuse, forcing mentally-ill citizens to perform inhumane tasks, or forcing mentally-ill citizens to live and/or work in inhumane conditions.

Basic services should be offered to all citizens who are mentally-ill.

I support this one. This is exactly what a UN resolution should be. Supporting a broad principle, defining it so it is enforceable, and providing broad parameters of prohibited conduct without micro-managing edicts on member nations.

I can't think of a single thing wrong with this one.

I agree in many ways.

Having said that it may be a little too vague about what constitutes mental illness. Many mental illnesses both are preventable, temporary and curable. Stress and depression are good examples.

Don't get me wrong. I do think that both incurable and curable types of mental illness should be extended the same kindness. However I believe that the resolution should mention that. It is too easy for a country's government organisations to sweep aside groups of people with real mental illness concerns by telling them that they are just putting it on, or faking the symtoms. They save on medical costs, but leave large areas of mental illness unresearched, and sufferers without help.

It wasn't until Freud that people even recognized mental illness at all. Even then they had a slightly querky view of the subject. We can't rely on all countries having the same view on what makes a person mentally ill. We cannot really be sure that we have it right, even in light of development of the field of psychiatry.

Even so, Bweezy, you are right. It is a proposition with much to be said for it. I will be voting for this one. I just wanted to raise a slight concern with it.

I support this resolution for pretty much the same reasons bweezy does. The spelling's reasonable as well.

I disagree. I think the definition of mental illness is sufficiently specific without being restrictive. A narrower definition would hinder the effectiveness of this resolution.

Just a reminder to everyone not to ignore the "Euthanasia" resolution discussion and poll as well. That one is the one currently being voted upon. This Fair Treatment of the Mentally Ill resolution will be voted upon starting the 17th. So both topics are open for discussion at this time.

I do take your point that a more specific definition would start to make the resolution difficult to implement and enforce.

I just thought that it should define mental illness more broadly, rather than more narrowly. I thought that it should account for illnesses that are both hereditary and socially caused within the wording in some respect.

Having said that, it is more than possible to interpret the current wording in that way, and thus I am happy with it.

My only concern is with a minor point in the wording, and as I mention I fully intend to support this motion when the vote starts.

This resolution passed by a huge margin (16,000 - 2,000 the last time I checked).