Annabel, Manapa, everyone else,
TOS are following generally accepted standards, advising members to direct people to their doctor, or mental health provider.
I guess I am suggesting that in this case the TOS deviate from generally accepted standards, in favor of a more helpful, realistic approach. Modern mental health systems often fly in the face of dhamma. I.E. heavy doses of very potent drugs, "positive thinking," self-affirmation, frivolous socialization, not thinking about death, and some more.
but who would you advise people to see as a standard TOS?
It doesn't seem necessary to advise people to go to one certain area. Maybe a close real life friend? Sangha? A trusted professor? A trusted doctor? A trusted employee/r? A parent? A sibling? An different internet forum? Maybe a PM to someone on this forum would be permitted--I don't know. If a person wanted help from here, to some extent it suggests that they are looking for advice that is by the dhamma, not merely the generally accepted standard, especially in this case where that advice could be harmful.
it is obvious, that you have a bone to pick with psychiatric hospitals and specialists, perhaps from own sad experience, who knows, and no system is perfect, and you also may have points, but again, there is little or no alternative, and this forum is not it.
It is often that only after something enters into one's personal life that they research it more thoroughly and become more acquainted with it, and with others who have personal experience with it. As for there being little or no alternative, that doesn't mean you should do it; bearing it out with patience may in fact be the best "alternative." Many systems might not be perfect, what I am pointing out here is that this system can be particularly harmful, and to direct people towards it is not a good idea. There are many places on the internet to find out what's good and bad about this system, places where you can hear about the practices of the companies involved, studies you can read, forums you can visit, websites where you can see thousands of patient reports, claims by experts, doctors, reporters, family members, etc..
The insistence that this is not the forum to do this sort of thing--I understand that. I'm just saying that the byline might be changed from "see a professional or doctor," and that in places where seeing a doctor is suggested, stating the downsides of this should be permitted.
Stating that people here are unqualified to talk about this sort of thing alongside suggesting one see a doctor implies that doctors are
qualified to talk about this, when the case is that some might be and some might not be. The opinions among doctors alone varies so hugely, which alone is enough to suggest that if some of them are right, some of them are not. Therefore, find someone you trust might be better byline-advice than put trust in someone because of their profession.
The administration of drugs might seem a separate topic, but there is something of a mania of prescribing drugs today. Maybe someone should just put the fifth precept alongside the recommendation to see a doctor; if we talk about whether or not the medicines qualify as intoxicants, I think it could go on for a while without getting anywhere, so maybe the best thing to do is remind people of the precept so they can make up their own mind.