treatment compliance in about 80% of patients... After commitment is terminated, about ¾ of that group remain in treatment on a voluntary basis." Arguments against and opponents Human rights advocate considers it a violation of freedom of thought or opinion, or views the use of neuroleptic as degrading treatment that can also impede on their right to work due to sometimes handicapping side effects. Other argue for a right of self-determination or self ownership, considering it a paternalistic approach that can be wrongly applied considering psychiatry criteria for diagnosis are very subjective backed by some studies questioning diagnosis (see Rosenhan experiment), the unlimited duration with often lack or no foresight to an end from the patient is also criticised. Some opponents dispute the effects of compulsory treatment as positive, questioning the methodology of studies that show effectiveness. Some point to disparities in the way these laws are applied. Opponents claim they are giving medication to the patient, but there are no brain chemical imbalances to correct in "mental illness". Our ability to control ourselves and reason comes from the mind, and the brain is being reduced in size from the psychiatric medications. The slippery slope argument of "If government bodies are given power, they will use it in excess." was proven when 350–450 CTOs were expected to be issued in 2008 and more than five times that number were issued in the first few months. Every year there are increasing numbers of people subject to CTO's. The psychiatric survivors movement opposes compulsory treatment on the basis that the ordered drugs often have serious or unpleasant side-effects such as tardive dyskinesia, neuroleptic malignant syndrome, akathisia, excessive weight gain leading to diabetes, addiction, sexual side effects, increased risk of suicide and QT prolongation. The New York Civil Liberties Union has denounced what they see as racial and socioeconomic biases in the issuing of outpatient commitment orders. The main opponents to any kind of coercion, including the outpatient commitment and any other form of involuntary commitment, are Giorgio Antonucci and Thomas Szasz. See also US specific: Laura's Law MindFreedom International General: Deinstitutionalisation Psychiatric reform in Italy Giorgio Antonucci Notes References External links Treatment Advocacy Center Civil commitment laws and standards by state MindFreedom National Mental Health Consumers' Self-Help Clearinghouse Mental Illness Policy Org Kendra's Law Laura's Law Psychosis Mental health law Deinstitutionalisation