Discussion What would happen if instead of the term ‘help’ was replaced with ‘intervention’?

[TAW122]

Based on a long podcast video (linked here with the timestamp) which talks about psychiatry and involuntary commitments and various other topics, there was one point that stuck out to me and hence the title of this thread. The question proposed in this thread, is "What would happen if instead of CTB preventionists and pro-lifers used the term 'invention' instead of 'help'?" There are more points in the video and continued discussion and will briefly address them as I delve into it.

So this is my take on what would happen if instead of the word or term 'help' being used, another word (perhaps more sinister but accurate, not an euphemism nor deception) being used is 'intervention' or even 'detention for evaluation' would really change and shape the person's view on the psychiatric system itself. I think it would result in less cooperation and more informed decisions, especially for people who were misled into thinking that 'help' was going to solve their problems. This deception and euphemism (which is perhaps by design) is intended to lull unsuspecting and gullible people into thinking that once they open up, they will be helped and be better off, but instead of what happens is the person is treated like a criminal in the psychiatric and mental health system.

Some other points throughout the video (timestamped and linked here) explain that psychiatrists and many mental health professionals don't reveal the fact, either deception through omission, or even just plain lying, because they don't want to make their jobs harder or more difficult. That is understandable from an economic standpoint too, though it is still unethical and immoral to lie especially when it negatively impacts the patient. In addition to this, (timestamped linked here) another point is that there are people (in our current system and the way it's set up) is where there are suspects and those who break the law claim 'CTB ideation and such' just to get sent to the psychward to avoid jail/prison, but that has it's own risks and drawbacks.

The podcast further mentions that people who do that as a tactic, sometimes end up making their own lives even worse because instead of being guilty of a crime, they are then not-guilty by reason of insanity, which is potentially worse (linked and timestamped here) than just being held accountable (and likely found guilty) of the small crime itself (I'm not a lawyer but I believe either way, it's on the person's record, background check which is just as bad (maybe worse) as having an actual criminal record). While there are more points that I could address, I'd rather not make this into a super long thread as there are other points that could be addressed in a separate thread. I also rather not go off too far off tangent and essentially derail my own thread, so I will only mention a few points.

In conclusion, personally, I think that less patients being deceived into getting help only to find that they have their rights stripped away, personal problems exacerbated (and with additional problems on top of existing ones they faced prior to being detained or committed against their will), will result in less CTB and generally a more receptive view of psychiatry and the mental health system. With that, what are your thoughts on different words used instead of the term 'help' but other terms to more accurately describe what would happen to subjects or patients who may potentially end up interacting with the psychiatric system itself? Would they be more aware of the consequences of detainment and/or worse, involuntary commitment?

 

[Jadeith]

What would happen? All these annoying prolifers and preventionists would lose moral high ground because they won't be helping anymore aka doing something "good", morally valuable. It would become more like police intervention - we do not know who's "guilty" but we react to disturbance. Maybe a person requires some form of "backup" and uplifting in mental terms or maybe not and just wants to leave. But then again - there's still stigma that anyone thinking about suicide is not in right state of mind so is unable to make rational decision and should be forced into receiving treatment, help or whatever you want to call it.
And finally - George Carlin had this wonderful standup about soft language. Changing condition's name won't change the condition, no matter what the condition is.

 

[Darkover]

The terminology we use, especially around psychiatry and suicide prevention, shapes not just perceptions but decisions, expectations, and ultimately lives. Let's delve into this with clarity.

Framing 'Help' vs 'Intervention'

The word "help" is fundamentally optimistic. It suggests compassion, choice, and betterment. But when this term is used as a euphemism for what often amounts to forced intervention, involuntary detainment, or coercive treatment, it stops being honest. For a suicidal or mentally distressed person, being told, "We're here to help," and then being handcuffed, sedated, or forcibly committed, feels like a bait-and-switch.

If we replaced the word "help" with something like:

"Intervention"

"Detainment for evaluation"

"Compulsory treatment"

"Emergency psychiatric seizure" (to be dramatic but accurate)

…then the public perception of psychiatry would drastically shift. Many would likely:

Think twice before calling a suicide hotline or opening up to clinicians.

Be more cautious, guarded, or avoidant.

Research their rights beforehand.

Avoid the system altogether (which has both pros and cons).

In one sense, this could reduce the number of people misled into thinking they're entering a collaborative healing process when they're actually entering a legal-medical mechanism of control. But it could also drive people away from the very support they might need—had it been truly voluntary, transparent, and compassionate.

 

[Pluto]

 

[TAW122]

@Jadeith Interesting take on the change of the terminology. Yes, I do think that these pro-lifers/preventionists will lose moral ground if/when that happens.
@Darkover that's true and will greatly change how people respond to mental health professionals and such. On the last point, yes I think there will be some drawback, but I would think those who are really unsound of mind and irrational or in a temporary state of psychosis or not in line with reality, yes, forced treatment (albeit temporary) could be beneficial for them, so I could see the argument from that angle. Of course, for most people who are just wanting to die (not even actively attempting or imminently a danger) the deception of 'help' does more harm than good.