ERIC STRACHAN & WILLIAM SPAULDINGDepartment of Psychology, University of Nebraska – Lincoln, Nebraska, USAIf a question is unanswerable, it islikely the wrong question.– Jordan PetersonThe history of involuntary treatment isone of controversy. In the USA and theUK, involuntary treatment has its rootsin early government attempts to care forthose who could not, or would not, carefor themselves. According to Boyle(2002), government assumption of theduty to care for indigents was a markeddeparture from the ancient tradition offamilies and local communities bearingthe burden of social deviance and pov-erty. The shift in locus of care, however,was not accomplished simply by buildingand filling state asylums. Because ‘mad-ness’ and ‘insanity’ were invoked asjustifications for governmental interven-tions, the authorities invoking such termshad to convince the public that theseformerly vague, idiosyncratic, and cultu-rally bound constructs should now beregarded as scientific phenomena ‘whichcould only be authoritatively diagnosed,certified and dealt with by a group oflegalized experts’ (Scull, 1975: 218; citedin Boyle, 2002: 18). For a variety ofreasons, not necessarily related to scien-tific achievement, physicians became theexperts of choice and medical (psychia-tric) diagnoses became the relevant con-structs.Today, involuntary treatment is ac-complished at a very similar nexus ofclinical, scientific, and legal interests andcontroversies. Although much has chan-ged since the 18th century—especiallyregarding the language used to describebizarre behaviour—the difficulties sur-rounding involuntary treatment largelyremain. There are continuing questionsabout the scope of the government’smental health authority and the extentto which policies and procedures inmental health law reflect the best ofclinical science. There even remains somecontroversy as to what methods are bestemployed in the pursuit of understanding