Ideally we would look at things analytically. If you've been hit by a car and are unconcious and unable to consent to treatment, you are still treated. It should be that if you are mentally ill and unable to consent to treatment, you should still be treated. If one day I lose my mind and I am on my own on the street, I would hope that I would get taken to treatment rather than be allowed to die on my own.

It's time we put virtue signalling aside when it comes to medical treatment. If someone is experiencing hypothermia and not in the right state of mind, we don't allow them to strip off their clothes in confusion even if that is the natural stress response to hypothermia, we hold them down and get them warm and well. If your friend is drunk and belligerent, you keep them home where they can sober up safely instead of letting them wander into traffic, even if they try and wrestle away. We should do the same for those suffering from mental illness, who due to their illness are in no state to care for their wellbeing, and we should do what we can to treat them until they are in the right state of mind.

I'm definitely in agreement here that there is that threshold, but what I'm not so clear about is where that threshold lies. It's one of those things which I feel the boundary is nothing but grey. However, one area where I think might be relatively easy would be the case of crime + health. Rather than jail, forcible internment in said mental health facility might be a better alternative.

On an aside, it's funny how "One flew over the cuckoo's nest" had such an impact on mental health treatment, and how mental health institutions were viewed.