an extremely common assertion in much of antipsych theory is that the violence directed towards psychiatrized people is wrong specifically because it would be unthinkable for people with physical illnesses to be treated in this way. you'll see that argument again and again: "I know of no other specialty whose practitioners lie to their patients" (Peter Gotzsche), "At the same time, it is unusual for scientists widely and persistently to disagree among themselves concerning the ideas and actions appropriate to their special areas of competence." (Thomas Szasz), the idea that you would not ask a person with a broken leg to walk, etc.
this of course never seems to take into account that no matter what part of the psychiatric system is being criticized, the same tools can, and are wielded against physically disabled people (without even getting into the vast amount of overlap between these two populations). very rarely are the parallels between psychiatrized people and physically disabled people (the hospital and medical system enabling abuse, deprivation of choices in treatment through waitlists and financial constraints, medical racism and misogyny, positivist scientific perspectives that deny the possibility of biases and disproven data, etc etc) used for attempts at solidarity.
the physically disabled person is often the specter that haunts antipsychiatry, a useful rhetorical tool, but never more than that - a figure to be conceptualized simultaneously as well-treated, believed, and respected by medical personnel (unlike the psychiatrized), and also as someone for whom, due to having an objective and prediscursive illness, any treatment enforced by authority, regardless of the patient's opinion, would be justified (unlike the psychiatrized).
