I don't know enough about serious psychiatric disorders to comment on if the author is right or wrong, except that I think our society treats complex issues as if they can be solved with simple answers and I suspect that it is the same here. Involuntary treatment of any sort is problematic and ripe for abuse so it very much should be regarded with suspicion. On the other hand, there are many disorders that make someone a danger to themselves or others, or just unable to live unassisted. The problem is where to draw the line.

If someone has repeatedly shown violent tendencies, then I think some level of forced care is generally agreed on. But what if they have only muttered threats? And what distinguishes their threats from the kind of vague "I'm going to get you" that gets muttered often enough? What about things like hoarding disorder? Should they be forced into treatment? Although they might be endangering their own health, people make choices that are bad for their health all the time. Beyond that, they aren't necessarily posing a danger to anyone. Yet their condition causes, at a minimum, unsafe living conditions and destruction of property. The author mentions bipolar, but I think this is even difficult. Even in a state of mania, I think most bipolar people are still capable of making rational decisions. Do we remove their autonomy simply because we might disagree with their decisions and they have a diagnosis? But if their disease is causing problems making rational decisions, maybe someone stepping in would be appropriate? It is definitely a very tricky issue.