CCHR Seeks End to Mandated Community Psychiatric Programs, Citing Global Alarm
LOS ANGELES, Calif., May 27, 2025 (SEND2PRESS NEWSWIRE) — The Citizens Commission on Human Rights International (CCHR), a mental health industry watchdog, is calling for an overhaul of psychiatric hospitalization and community treatment laws. With 54% of U.S. psychiatric patients held involuntarily, CCHR warns the system has normalized coercion. Most U.S. states authorize Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) laws that compel individuals in the community to receive psychiatric treatment—typically drug-based—under threat of court orders or rehospitalization. Critics say the laws criminalize noncompliance and medicalize dissent. A Pennsylvania source reported that under AOT, 'noncompliance is pathologized, autonomy is dismissed…Treatment ceases to be chosen; it becomes imposed.'[1]
A 2021 NIH-funded study published in Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology found that 70% of youth aged 16–27 who were involuntarily hospitalized reported long-lasting distrust of clinicians—even when they remained in therapy. Meanwhile, a Cochrane Review concluded that AOT laws showed no consistent benefit over voluntary care.[2]
Many mental health consumers are also forced to accept involuntary treatment in the community by being made subject to community treatment orders (CTOs), under threat that non-compliance can result in them being detained against their will in inpatient facilities and institutions.[3]
A broader 2016 systematic review published in The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry analyzed more than 80 studies on CTOs, including three randomized controlled trials and multiple meta-analyses. The result: 'No evidence of patient benefit.' CTOs did not reduce hospitalizations or improve quality of life—but did result in patients spending significantly more time under coercive state psychiatric control.[4]
Patients are often forced onto antipsychotic drugs. Bioethicist Carl Elliott says such neuroleptics cause 'tardive dyskinesia, a writhing, twitching motion of the mouth and tongue that can be permanent.' Psychotropic drug side effects can include violent behavior, aggression, paranoia, psychosis, dangerously high body temperatures, irregular heartbeat, and heart conditions, disorientation, delusion, lack of coordination, suicidal tendencies, and numerous physical problems.[5]
Jan Eastgate, President of CCHR International says, 'Ironically, the very side effects of antipsychotic drugs—such as agitation and aggression—are the same behaviors often cited to justify forced hospitalization and involuntary treatment in the first place.'
Yet, under AOT regimes, complaints about side effects or treatment refusals are used against patients as evidence of illness. The term 'anosognosia'—defined as an inability to recognize one's illness—is routinely invoked to override consent, framing resistance as delusional and justifying further force.
As one media source put it: 'It casts resistance as malfunction… Instead of seeing dissent as meaningful or contextual, it reframes it as a symptom of a broken brain. This framing is not just misguided—it's dangerous.'[6]
Amalia Gamio, Vice Chair of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, helped open CCHR's Traveling Exhibit, Psychiatry: An Industry of Death in Los Angeles on May 17, denounced global psychiatric coercion: 'Involuntary medication, electroshock, even sterilization — these are inhuman practices. Under international law, they constitute torture. There is an urgent need to ban all coercive and non-consensual measures in psychiatric settings.'
Rev. Frederick Shaw, Jr., President of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Inglewood-South Bay Branch, condemned how psychiatry disproportionately targets African Americans. 'More than 27% of Black youth—already impacted by racism—are pathologized with labels like 'Oppositional Defiant Disorder,' which has no medical test,' he said.
'This mirrors how Black civil rights leaders in the 1960s were once labeled with 'protest psychosis' to justify drugging them with antipsychotics,' he added. 'Psychiatry didn't just participate in suppressing Black voices—it orchestrated it. And they're still doing it.'
Psychiatric diagnoses in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) are not discovered through scientific testing but are voted into existence by APA committees. CCHR says despite the absence of objective medical proof for these labels, they can create lifelong patients to be drugged and subjected to involuntary interventions.
Forced psychiatric practices have been condemned by the United Nations (UN) and World Health Organization (WHO), which have repeatedly called for an end to forced institutionalization, electroshock, drugging, and community-based coercive measures.[7]
In the U.S., over 37% of children and youth in psychiatric facilities are subjected to seclusion or restraint.[8] Some—as young as 7—have died under these conditions. In multiple cases, medical examiners ruled the deaths homicides, yet prosecutions have been rare.[9] 'This is not mental healthcare. This is systemic cruelty and homicide,' adds Eastgate.
CCHR and its global network are demanding regulations that prohibit coercive psychiatric treatment. 'These are abuses. Forced treatment is torture passed off as mental health 'care,'' CCHR says.
About CCHR:
The group was co-founded in 1969 by the Church of Scientology and psychiatrist and author Prof. Thomas Szasz. CCHR has exposed and helped bring accountability for psychiatric abuses globally. Its advocacy now echoes international calls by the UN and WHO to end coercive mental health practices.
To learn more, visit: https://www.cchrint.org/2025/05/23/end-mandated-community-psychiatric-programs/
SOURCES:
[1] 'Brave New Pittsburgh: Forced Use of Psychotropic Pharmaceuticals is Coming,' Popular Rationalism, 16 May 2025, https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/brave-new-pittsburgh-forced-use-of
[2] https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/brave-new-pittsburgh-forced-use-of
[3] 'Ensuring compulsory treatment is used as a last resort: a narrative review of the knowledge about Community Treatment Orders,' Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 6 Jan 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13218719.2024.2421168#d1e194
[4] https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/brave-new-pittsburgh-forced-use-of
[5] https://www.cchrint.org/2022/04/04/cmhc-programs-can-harm-and-increase-the-homeless/; Susan Perry, 'Recruitment of homeless people for drug trials raises serious ethical issues, U bioethicist says,' MinnPost, 11 Aug. 2014, https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2014/08/recruitment-homeless-people-drug-trials-raises-serious-ethical-issues-u-bioet/; https://medium.com/matter/did-big-pharma-test-your-meds-on-homeless-people-a6d8d3fc7dfe
[6] 'Not Broken, Not Sick: A Rebellion Against the Anosognosia Frame,' Underground Transmissions, 13 May 2025 https://undergroundtransmissions.substack.com/p/not-broken-not-sick-a-rebellion-against
[7] World Health Organization, 'Guidance on mental health policy and strategic action plans,' Module 1, pp 3-4, 2025
[8] https://www.cchrint.org/2025/05/17/apa-faces-outrage-child-deaths-mental-health-failure/; Mohr, W, 'Adverse Effects Associated With Physical Restraint,' The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry—Review Paper, June 2003, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/070674370304800509
[9] Deborah Yetter, '7-year-old died at Kentucky youth treatment center due to suffocation, autopsy finds; 2 workers fired,' USA Today, 19 Sept. 2022, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/09/19/death-child-jaceon-terry-brooklawn-kentucky-youth-center/10428004002/; Taylor Johnston, ''He didn't deserve that': Remembering young people who've died from restraint and seclusion,' CT Insider, 31 Oct. 2022, https://www.ctinsider.com/projects/2022/child-deaths-school-restraint-seclusion/
MULTIMEDIA:
Image link for media: https://www.Send2Press.com/300dpi/25-0527-s2p-cchr-mandated-300dpi.jpg
Image caption: 'Involuntary medication, electroshock, even sterilization — these are inhuman practices. Under international law, they constitute torture. There is an urgent need to ban all coercive and non-consensual measures in psychiatric settings.' – Amalia Gamio, Vice Chair of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
NEWS SOURCE: Citizens Commission on Human Rights
Keywords: Religion and Churches, Citizens Commission on Human Rights, CCHR International, CCHR International, Jan Eastgate, coercive psychiatry, LOS ANGELES, Calif.
This press release was issued on behalf of the news source (Citizens Commission on Human Rights) who is solely responsibile for its accuracy, by Send2Press® Newswire. Information is believed accurate but not guaranteed. Story ID: S2P126451 APNF0325A
To view the original version, visit: https://www.send2press.com/wire/cchr-seeks-end-to-mandated-community-psychiatric-programs-citing-global-alarm/
© 2025 Send2Press® Newswire, a press release distribution service, Calif., USA.
RIGHTS GRANTED FOR REPRODUCTION IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY ANY LEGITIMATE MEDIA OUTLET - SUCH AS NEWSPAPER, BROADCAST OR TRADE PERIODICAL. MAY NOT BE USED ON ANY NON-MEDIA WEBSITE PROMOTING PR OR MARKETING SERVICES OR CONTENT DEVELOPMENT.
Disclaimer: This press release content was not created by nor issued by the Associated Press (AP). Content below is unrelated to this news story.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
31 minutes ago
- The Hill
Judge orders Trump to restore AmeriCorps programs in two dozen states
A federal judge ordered the Trump administration on Thursday to restore AmeriCorps-funded programs in Washington, D.C., and 24 Democratic-led states as their lawsuit proceeds over recent cuts. U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman ruled the states were likely to succeed in their claims that federal law required AmeriCorps to provide a notice-and-comment period before making the significant reductions. 'As the litigation proceeds, the States cannot simply pause their current and forthcoming disaster response efforts,' wrote Boardman, an appointee of former President Obama who serves in Maryland. 'They will have to fill this void with their own resources,' she continued. 'The costs they will incur cannot be recovered at the end of this litigation.' Created in 1993, AmeriCorps is a federal agency focused on national service that provides stipends to volunteers who respond to various local, state and national challenges. The Trump administration in April looked to make drastic reductions at AmeriCorps as the Department of Government Efficiency implanted itself across the federal bureaucracy to implement spending cuts. AmeriCorps reduced its workforce from more than 700 to 116 employees and forced the exit of roughly 30,000 volunteers, the judge noted. AmeriCorps also terminated 1,031 grants, reflecting about half of its total grant funding. Boardman's order requires the administration to reinstate the terminated grants in the states that sued and restore members of the National Civilian Community Corps to their posts. But the judge declined to reinstate the laid off employees, saying the states hadn't shown they have the legal right to sue over that aspect. 'Any harm the defendants might face if the agency actions are enjoined pales in comparison to the concrete harms that the States and the communities served by AmeriCorps programs have suffered and will continue to suffer,' Boardman wrote. Led by Maryland, the states that sued comprise Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. Washington, D.C., also was part of the suit. Beyond arguing no notice and comment was required, the Trump administration argued the states lack legal standing, do not challenge final agency actions and that their claims must be brought before a court that has exclusive jurisdiction over certain government contract lawsuits. The Hill has reached out to AmeriCorps for comment.
Buzz Feed
2 hours ago
- Buzz Feed
Doctor Annie Andrews Running Against Lindsey Graham
You've almost certainly heard the name (and of the various misdeeds) of Lindsey Graham if you've been politically conscious at any point since 2003. That's the year he was sworn into the US Senate, representing his home state of South Carolina. He's held the seat ever since. Senator Graham gained more national recognition during President Donald Trump's first campaign, widely and publicly criticizing him before pulling a complete 180 and defending many of his political moves over the last decade. Graham is currently serving his fourth term, but he's up for reelection next year. That's where Dr. Annie Andrews, a South Carolina doctor, comes in. She's running as a Democrat for Lindsey Graham's seat. She previously sought to defeat incumbent Republican Nancy Mace in the 2022 race for South Carolina's District 1 House seat, but was unsuccessful. I could list out her policies, but she does it best in a campaign announcement that's gone viral across platforms. She starts the video by saying she's been a pediatrician in South Carolina for nearly two decades, trusted by parents "to treat their kids for just about anything you can imagine." She then pulls out a series of X-rays of children with different medical conditions, each to highlight a specific point about her views. First is a child with measles pneumonia, "a condition easily prevented by vaccines," she says. "This is a kid with cancer. One of the diseases the NIH doesn't have the funding to study anymore," Dr. Andrews continues, showing more X-rays. "And this is a kid who's been shot. Which, despite being the number one cause of death for children in America, is no longer classified as a public health crisis." She then says, with an X-ray of a constipated patient, "And this kid, there's really no other way to say this... is quite literally full of shit." Andrews then points to a video of Senator Graham. "And this is an adult who is also completely and unequivocally full of shit." She then rolls the tape — a supercut of Graham walking back his statements about Donald Trump. "It's embarrassing, and South Carolina deserves better," Dr. Andrews says. She also slams the current administration, from Elon Musk's cutting Social Security funding to "vaccine-denying brain worm guy" Robert F. Kennedy Jr. gutting healthcare programs. She also mentions Secretary of Education Linda McMahon's mass layoffs and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's war-plans-on-Signal blunder. "And Lindsey Graham voted to confirm every single one of these people," Andrews says, then bangs her head on her dining table next to a wine glass. I feel you, girl. "All while backing Trump's plan to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires while raising yours. No wonder he won't show his face here in South Carolina," she goes on, cutting to a clip of Graham. "I don't need a town hall to know what to do," he says in it. "Lindsey Graham has been a senator for half of my lifetime — and as it turns out, most senators don't get better with age," Dr. Andrews says. "Will winning this race be easy? No. But you can't win if you don't run. And the one thing we can all agree on is [that] Lindsey Graham doesn't deserve a free pass back to D.C." "Now, Lindsey is gonna tell you I'm radical, that I'm crazy. Because that's what weak men do when they feel threatened by strong women," she continues before offering a look into her very normal life as a busy mom and peek-a-boo-playing pediatrician. "SO radical," she jokes. "I also just happen to be someone who isn't afraid of a fight. And like so many of you, I am worried about what the future holds for our kids and our state," she says, then goes on to name issues like the climate crisis, failing hospitals and schools, and prices driven up by tariffs. "Worrying won't do anything, but stepping up to join me in this fight just might," Dr. Andrews says. "A fight where we put our common sense over culture wars and hope over hate." "Right now, Lindsey Graham is counting on all of us to stay quiet. And that means one thing — it's time to get loud. I'm Dr. Annie Andrews, and I hope you'll join me," she concludes. Courier posted the video on TikTok, where people were absolutely fired up. "YES. DOCTORS IN POLITICS," the top comment reads. Some folks said that Dr. Andrews is bringing the energy that Democrats have been lacking... ...and the youth. "This is how we flip Congress. An impressive and competent candidate who understands the messaging we need to be pushing. Well done," this person wrote. A lot of people were just blown away by her poise and candor. A TON of South Carolina folks were super amped up. "One of the best ads I've seen," someone wrote. So, what do you think? Share alllll your thoughts in the comments.
Forbes
7 hours ago
- Forbes
Funding women's health innovations is a massive economic opportunity.
Women's health now includes conditions that affect them exclusively, differently and ... More disproportionately. That includes everything from endometriosis and menopause to heart disease and Alzheimer's. Unprecedented advances in medical science mean women live longer, yet they die in poorer health than men. The reasons are structural and systemic. The health system continues to be shaped by outdated definitions, insufficient research, and lopsided funding, according to the recently released Accenture and Springboard Enterprises' 2025 State of Women's Health report. What is needed now is not just more lip service, but a realignment of investment priorities—private, public, and philanthropic—that recognizes the full spectrum of women's health. 'Women's health is still vastly misunderstood,' says Alice Zheng, MD, MBA, and a partner at Foreground Capital, a venture fund focused on women's health. 'There's opportunity in almost every place you look.' NIH funding and VC investments In 2024, healthtech startups raised $28.5 billion in venture capital. Of that, just $1.6 billion went to femtech, products and services focused on women's health. That's about 6% of the pie. Meanwhile, of the $43.7 billion in research grants distributed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 2023, only $3.5 billion—8%—was directed toward women's health. These gaps persist despite women comprising more than half of the U.S. population and 51% of medical school graduates. 'It all starts with awareness and funding,' says Alisa Wilson, managing director at Accenture. 'We need to stop tackling this piecemeal and instead take a holistic approach across the entire ecosystem—academia, biotech, pharma, providers, and investors.' Wilson stresses that funding isn't just about early-stage startups: It's the fuel that powers the entire pipeline from preclinical research through commercialization. Zheng agrees. 'You need funding at every step—academic research, company formation, clinical validation, and market access. If the capital doesn't flow at each of those stages, innovation stalls.' At the root of the underinvestment problem is a lingering misconception that women's health is synonymous with reproductive health. While areas like fertility, contraception, and menopause have received more attention in recent years, conditions that affect women differently or disproportionately—such as autoimmune disease, cardiovascular disease, and cognitive decline—are even more underfunded and under-researched. A study found that women make up 78% of autoimmune disease patients, yet most immunology research still centers on male biology. In cardiovascular research, women account for just 38% of participants in clinical trials, even though heart disease is the leading cause of death for women globally, more than all cancers combined. 'There's still this assumption that we can just extrapolate from male data,' says Wilson. 'But women have 51% more adverse events across all products, likely because dosing, efficacy, and safety haven't been adequately studied by sex. That's a business problem as much as a health one.' The irony is that addressing the women's health gap isn't just a social imperative—it's a massive economic opportunity. A McKinsey report estimated that closing the women's health gap could add $1 trillion to the global economy by 2040 through increased productivity, reduced healthcare costs, and better health outcomes. 'This is a long game,' says Wilson. 'Better data and earlier intervention can improve therapy adherence, reduce hospitalizations, and ultimately lower costs. For pharma, that means more patients staying on treatment longer. For insurers, it's fewer high-cost emergencies. Everyone wins.' The private market is starting to take notice. At Springboard Enterprises, which accelerates the success of women-led health companies, menopause has become one of the fastest-growing areas of deal flow. Investment in women's health-specific conditions tripled between 2019 and 2024. Funding for health conditions adjacent to women's health grew even more. 'We're also seeing interest grow in cardiovascular and autoimmune conditions, as investors recognize how deeply women are affected,' says Miranda Ewald, director of programs at Springboard. Yet significant white space remains. Zheng highlights cognitive health and postmenopausal aging as two critical areas where funding is urgently needed. 'There's an entire spectrum of women's health issues tied to hormonal changes—brain health, bone density, cardiovascular risks—but they've been largely ignored by research and investment communities.' Even when founders tackle these high-need areas, they face challenges in positioning their companies effectively. For years, women's health startups had to shoehorn their solutions into the narrow definitions of femtech or reproductive care to get investor attention. That's changing. 'We're starting to see a shift away from fertility as the dominant narrative,' says Ewald. 'In fact, many investors are now more interested in startups that have broader applications, like bone health technologies that started with women but can scale to serve all populations.' Still, the term 'women's health' itself remains a double-edged sword. 'Ironically, some generalist investors told us they're more likely to invest if a company doesn't brand itself as a women's health company—even if it clearly is,' says Zheng. 'That's how deep the bias runs.' Accenture and Springboard's framework aims to broaden the scope. Instead of viewing women's health as a niche, the report categorizes conditions into three buckets: those that are exclusive to women, differently experienced by women, and disproportionately affect women. That includes everything from endometriosis and menopause to heart disease and Alzheimer's. Accelerating innovation in women's health unlocks economic and health gains that benefit everyone—not just women. This broader lens reframes women's health as a systemic public health issue—one that affects not only women but also their families, workplaces, and economies. 'We need to stop asking why women's health matters,' says Wilson. 'The better question is, how much longer can we afford to ignore it?' It's time for funders—public, private, and philanthropic—to realign their priorities. The evidence is clear: women's health is not just about reproduction, and it's not just a women's issue. It's a societal one. Closing the funding gap could unlock better care, stronger economies, and longer, healthier lives for everyone. If we redefine women's health, we can shape a better healthier future for everyone.
