i'm not sure if you're asking in good faith or just wanted to vent (totally reasonable if so, that's what blogs are for), but in case you're actually curious...
while i can't speak for everyone, as much as i'm always down to talk about how deeply fucked up the panic room detox was, i don't think that narratively it should have gone down any different way. it's a tragedy -- these are imperfect people, scared and worn through and in an impossible situation doing awful things to themselves and each other, and that's what makes it interesting.
in the "real world", tricking, forcibly restraining someone against their will, and leaving them there to white-knuckle their way through that kind of detox would be... straight up monstrous. overriding not only their autonomy but that panic room setup was likely to get someone killed, given sam's seizures and the lack of hygiene, water, etc.
so let's ignore the real world because it's a story, and it's narratively interesting, but then - why talk (in your words, complain) about it?
well, it's interesting (and fucked up) because it's a violation of sam's autonomy. it's even more fucked up because, given the information they had at this point in the story, it shouldn't be the "right" choice. you said "Dean must be a villain for trying to keep Sam, himself and the rest of the world safe" <- emphasis on "the rest of the world" here. the information that they have at the time of the panic room detox is that they need to kill lilith to save the world. sam is drinking blood due to addiction but also with the rationalization that it makes him stronger and more able to kill lilith, and he's been told he's the only one who can. dean accepts that forcibly detoxing sam may ruin their best chance at killing lilith and therefore their best chance at saving the world.
in-canon at that specific point in time, with the information the characters are operating on, detoxing sam is likely to end the world. it is selfish.
dean is forcibly detoxing sam because dean cannot bear to have his brother become a monster. he needs sam to stay human (to die human, in his own "at least he dies human" words, which reveal a lot about how he actually feels about the situation). he is doing this because he believes it will save sam and he believes it is his duty to save sam. even if saving him means killing him, because he also believes it's his duty to kill sam if sam ever goes too far "dark side". this is all very blatantly established over seasons 2-4, or 1-4 even, but definitely thrown in motion from 2x01 and john telling dean to save sam or kill him. this has been building for seasons, and dean is discovering now that to do one might be to do the other, and his act of doing so is...
why paint him as a villain here? because this act is really horrifying. i don't think it's worth villifying either of them, but i think it's worth understanding that dean has tricked sam, is forcing this thing on sam that sam doesn't want, this thing that might (he believes truly could) kill him, and doing so despite the fact that the outcome could (again, based on what information he believes at the time) cost all of humanity in the war against demons.
as i said, it's narratively interesting, but i don't think there's any point in pretending it's not messy and wrong and fucked up of him to do. just like i don't believe there's any point in pretending that sam drinking demon blood wasn't also fucked up and wrong and messy despite his rationalizations for it. they're both awful to each other this season and it culminates in a horrible throw-down and the literal start of the apocalypse. why reduce that to either of them being totally right or totally wrong or completely the villain or the hero?
kaledo-art
dededos
origamiaround
annaxmalina
vaporwave
kianamaiart
discoholicmusic
