Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: just Warren on March 01, 2018, 10:08:07 PM
-
He makes some good points, but... (https://amgreatness.com/2018/03/01/forget-gun-control-bring-back-mental-hospitals/)
I've read a lot of accounts of horrible conditions, non-existent treatments, staffers that make the worst VA people look like saints, and a lot of folks being confined unjustly. Plus you're not solving the problems, just hiding them away.
So this isn't a silver bullet of an idea to solve the mental illness problem.
But could it help? Is it worth the chances of revisiting the horrors listed above to try?
-
In this regard, I have said that if we want to make effective change, we should reduce the criteria for involuntary commitment, forced mental health treatment, and removal of children from dysfunctional homes. I see these problems every day in my clinics. Of course, this would have considerable civil liberties and who is going to pay for it issues.
The grand experiment to decentralize mental health treatment from large asylum settings to smaller community-based settings has been a dismal failure, primarily due to lack of funding.
-
He makes some good points, but... (https://amgreatness.com/2018/03/01/forget-gun-control-bring-back-mental-hospitals/)
I've read a lot of accounts of horrible conditions, non-existent treatments, staffers that make the worst VA people look like saints, and a lot of folks being confined unjustly. Plus you're not solving the problems, just hiding them away.
So this isn't a silver bullet of an idea to solve the mental illness problem.
But could it help? Is it worth the chances of revisiting the horrors listed above to try?
All we did was take the mentally ill and turn them into the homeless. As bad as some places may have been, at least they were sheltered from the elements, occasionally bathed, and provided meals.
On the streets...not so much, along with all the other problems listed.
-
Objections based on previous problems with mental health care facilities do not invalidate the basic premise that dude Scalia presented: "We don't need gun control, we need nut control."
Whoever that dude is, he seems to have cut through all the bullbleep to the basic problem. I'd hire him if I had a job opening, and I invite a résumé from him to keep on file.
Terry, 230RN
-
He makes some good points, but... (https://amgreatness.com/2018/03/01/forget-gun-control-bring-back-mental-hospitals/)
I've read a lot of accounts of horrible conditions, non-existent treatments, staffers that make the worst VA people look like saints, and a lot of folks being confined unjustly. Plus you're not solving the problems, just hiding them away.
So this isn't a silver bullet of an idea to solve the mental illness problem.
But could it help? Is it worth the chances of revisiting the horrors listed above to try?
What's the problem you're trying to solve? "Hiding them away" solves the problem of having them buy guns and shoot up schools. Some statistician needs to parse mass shooting data and see if there's an "uptick" (as the media loves to say) after the move in the mid- to late 1970s to deinstitutionalize and "mainstream" nut cases out of mental institutions.
I think it's necessary to reinstate mental institutions. If the quality of care in them was poor, that's a different problem and it can be addressed.
-
Right now, crazy people seem to rotate between the gutter, the jail, and the emergency room.
It's hard to believe mental hospitals would be worse than what we are doing now. I may be wrong though...
-
It's the usual pendulum swing from one extreme to the other, while managing to swing right past and miss the happy middle ground.
We've gone from making it to easy to toss someone in the nuthouse and often poor conditions and poor treatment, to the other extreme. I may not be a subject matter expert and I won't pretend to have slept at a Holiday inn last night, but it would seem to me there has to be a happy middle ground in there.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
Right now, crazy people seem to rotate between the gutter, the jail, and the emergency room.
It's hard to believe mental hospitals would be worse than what we are doing now.
They are ending up in places that absolutely not equipped to help them in any meaningful way. Mental hospitals won't fix everything, there are a lot of things that aren't "fixable", but they would at least be better equipped to handle the problems of these people.
-
I would like to see someone take a real hard look at the drugs we are feeding people with real or perceived mental issues and what side effects are possible and/or allowed. I don't know much about them, but I have heard "homicidal tendencies" and other similar things have been added to the list of side effects for some of them. that is not even getting into the suicides related to some of these drugs.
-
I would like to see someone take a real hard look at the drugs we are feeding people with real or perceived mental issues and what side effects are possible and/or allowed. I don't know much about them, but I have heard "homicidal tendencies" and other similar things have been added to the list of side effects for some of them. that is not even getting into the suicides related to some of these drugs.
Hmmm... I think possibly is a bigger issue is the the homeless insane aren't taking any prescribed medications to control their conditions.
-
I'd be fine with bringing back the county homes/poor farms, (which in Iowa were the local mental hospitals and assisted/full care for the destitute) if the conditions were where everyone was treated like a human being.
The question is who is going to pay for it, seems there is a push in many states to reduce taxes (income to the government) and reduce services.
-
Back when I was on the Medic One unit, we called this 'dying with your rights on', as we took care of the floridly mentally-ill people on the street who ended up dying of exposure, untreated disease or violence. They had the perfect legal right to refuse treatment or housing and the perfect legal right to end up dead, because they were incapable of making a rational decision due to their illness.
-
I'd be fine with bringing back the county homes/poor farms, (which in Iowa were the local mental hospitals and assisted/full care for the destitute) if the conditions were where everyone was treated like a human being.
The question is who is going to pay for it, seems there is a push in many states to reduce taxes (income to the government) and reduce services.
I'd be interested to see an actual and honest comparison of the cost of ignoring the problem, vs the cost of tackling the problem in an efficient manner. Granted it's the government, so the efficient manner part is laughable. But it'd still be nice.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
Hmmm... I think possibly is a bigger issue is the the homeless insane aren't taking any prescribed medications to control their conditions.
I was not thinking about the effect of drugs on homeless people, but suicides and the mass shooter types.
Part of the issue with the homeless is liberal city leadership seems to not only tolerate their presence, but actively encourage and accomodate them.
-
If they tried to put homeless institutions, I foresee a lot of lawsuits and all sorts of money spent trying to accommodate various regulations and court orders. The cost would likely be high.
-
I would like to see someone take a real hard look at the drugs we are feeding people with real or perceived mental issues and what side effects are possible and/or allowed. I don't know much about them, but I have heard "homicidal tendencies" and other similar things have been added to the list of side effects for some of them. that is not even getting into the suicides related to some of these drugs.
Good call. IMHO the medical profession has become much too nonchalant about psychotropic drugs and their potential side effects.
Case in point: Me. I'm being treated by the dermatology clinic at the VA hospital for lesions on my lower legs. They're ugly, annoying, and they itch. At my last appointment (this past Monday), they prescribed Doxepin HCL "to help control the itching." The explanation was that it would make the nerves less sensitive.
I picked up the prescription at the pharmacy and went home. As I usually do with any new medication, I read the fact sheet. What I learned is that Doxepin is a psychotropic medication, and its primary use is treating depression. (That was red flag numero uno, right there.) So I read on.
WARNING:Antidepressant medications are used to treat a variety of conditions, including depression and other mental/mood disorders. these medications can help prevent suicidal thoughts/attempts and provide other important benefits. However, studies have shown that a small number of people (especially people younger than 25) who take antidepressants for any condition may experience worsening depression, other mental/mood symptoms, or suicidal thoughts/attempts. Therefore, it is very important to talk with the doctor about the risks and benefits of antidepressant medication (especially for people younger than 25), even if treatment is not for a mental/mood condition. Tell the doctor right away if you notice worsening depression/other psychiatric conditions, unusual behavior changes (including possible suicide thoughts/attempts), or other mental/mood changes (including new/worsening anxiety, panic attacks, trouble sleeping, irritability, hostile/angry feelings, impulsive actions, severe restlessness, very rapid speech). Be especially watchful for these symptoms when a new antidepressant is started or when the dose is changed.
Yeah, I really want to take this stuff because my shins itch. NOT! I'll take my chances with the itch, thanks just the same. I wrote a letter to the docs and dropped the unopened pill bottle off at the VA hospital on my way home from work this afternoon.
I'm a bit pissed off because, after a similar incident several years ago, there's supposed to be a flag in my record that I DO NOT want any psychotropic drugs. In this case, the doctors (two of them) didn't tell me Doxepin is a psychotropic drug, and they didn't mention anything about the possible side effects. With all the problems they're having with veterans committing suicide, one might think that's something they should have mentioned.
-
Good call. IMHO the medical profession has become much too nonchalant about psychotropic drugs and their potential side effects.
Case in point: Me. I'm being treated by the dermatology clinic at the VA hospital for lesions on my lower legs. They're ugly, annoying, and they itch. At my last appointment (this past Monday), they prescribed Doxepin HCL "to help control the itching." The explanation was that it would make the nerves less sensitive.
I picked up the prescription at the pharmacy and went home. As I usually do with any new medication, I read the fact sheet. What I learned is that Doxepin is a psychotropic medication, and its primary use is treating depression. (That was red flag numero uno, right there.) So I read on.
Yeah, I really want to take this stuff because my shins itch. NOT! I'll take my chances with the itch, thanks just the same. I wrote a letter to the docs and dropped the unopened pill bottle off at the VA hospital on my way home from work this afternoon.
I'm a bit pissed off because, after a similar incident several years ago, there's supposed to be a flag in my record that I DO NOT want any psychotropic drugs. In this case, the doctors (two of them) didn't tell me Doxepin is a psychotropic drug, and they didn't mention anything about the possible side effects. With all the problems they're having with veterans committing suicide, one might think that's something they should have mentioned.
Right.
Because you don't want to take a certain type of medication, the entire medical profession is nonchalant about it? Tell that to the folks who benefit immensely from those meds.
And good luck finding a prescription without a mile long list of potential side effects.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
I'd be interested to see an actual and honest comparison of the cost of ignoring the problem, vs the cost of tackling the problem in an efficient manner. Granted it's the government, so the efficient manner part is laughable. But it'd still be nice.
And, given that it's the government, good luck ever getting an honest comparison of the costs.
-
Because you don't want to take a certain type of medication, the entire medical profession is nonchalant about it? Tell that to the folks who benefit immensely from those meds.
And good luck finding a prescription without a mile long list of potential side effects.
Thank you for making my point. It isn't just the antidepressant they prescribed for me that has potentially negative side effects. The warning language I quoted didn't say Doxepin may result in depression and suicidal thoughts, it said "antidepressants." And I know that's true, because two years ago my daughter made seven (confirmed, probably one and possibly two more unconfirmed) attempts at suicide within the span of eight months -- all while being treated by psychiatrists and psychotropic drugs.
Are the doctors nonchalant? Damn straight, Skippy. They didn't warn my daughter the stuff might backfire. Did you read what the warning I quoted said?
it is very important to talk with the doctor about the risks and benefits of antidepressant medication
How can a patient talk to the doctor about the risks if the doctor doesn't even bother to tell the patient that the prescription is an anti-depressant ... and, oh by the way, it may make you feel suicidal. Remember, I'm a combat veteran, the kind of people the VA is supposed to be worried about committing suicide. Maybe I'm naive, but it seems more than a little irresponsible to prescribe a medication that warns it should be discussed, and not have the discussion or even tell the patient it's that type of medication.
So, yes, I think the profession is too nonchalant about those meds, and it's based on more than just my anecdotal episode.
-
Doxepin for chronic itching/rash/hives is a common 'off-label' use of the drug. There is abundant medical literature supporting use of the drug for this purpose.
-
Caffeine is an antidepressant. Just saying.
-
Doxepin for chronic itching/rash/hives is a common 'off-label' use of the drug. There is abundant medical literature supporting use of the drug for this purpose.
I understand that. It can still have the same side effects, and they didn't warn me about those before prescribing it. (Or after.)
-
In this case, the doctors (two of them) didn't tell me Doxepin is a psychotropic drug, and they didn't mention anything about the possible side effects.
That seems to be very common with doctors, not telling patients things it would be very helpful to know.
Perhaps Millcreek has an insight for us.
Good call. IMHO the medical profession has become much too nonchalant about psychotropic drugs and their potential side effects.
Case in point: Me. I'm being treated by the dermatology clinic at the VA hospital for lesions on my lower legs.
...
I'm a bit pissed off because, after a similar incident several years ago, there's supposed to be a flag in my record that I DO NOT want any psychotropic drugs. In this case, the doctors (two of them) didn't tell me Doxepin is a psychotropic drug, and they didn't mention anything about the possible side effects. With all the problems they're having with veterans committing suicide, one might think that's something they should have mentioned.
A couple weeks back I was doing some computer work for a nearby county veterans assistance office. (Oh, my goodness, that computer was clean when I re-did it 2 years ago, how did they manage to mess it up so?)
Anyway, in the 2+ fruitless hours I spent there I got to overhear some conversation. The VA doctors screwing up medication sounds "not uncommon".
-
Thank you for making my point. It isn't just the antidepressant they prescribed for me that has potentially negative side effects. The warning language I quoted didn't say Doxepin may result in depression and suicidal thoughts, it said "antidepressants." And I know that's true, because two years ago my daughter made seven (confirmed, probably one and possibly two more unconfirmed) attempts at suicide within the span of eight months -- all while being treated by psychiatrists and psychotropic drugs.
Are the doctors nonchalant? Damn straight, Skippy. They didn't warn my daughter the stuff might backfire. Did you read what the warning I quoted said?
How can a patient talk to the doctor about the risks if the doctor doesn't even bother to tell the patient that the prescription is an anti-depressant ... and, oh by the way, it may make you feel suicidal. Remember, I'm a combat veteran, the kind of people the VA is supposed to be worried about committing suicide. Maybe I'm naive, but it seems more than a little irresponsible to prescribe a medication that warns it should be discussed, and not have the discussion or even tell the patient it's that type of medication.
So, yes, I think the profession is too nonchalant about those meds, and it's based on more than just my anecdotal episode.
While I'm very sorry about your daughters attempts, antidepressants don't magically make you want to off yourself. Sometimes folks taking heart medicine still have heart attacks, ya wanna blame that in the particular heart medicine to and claim the doc was nonchalant about prescribing it?
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
While I'm very sorry about your daughters attempts, antidepressants don't magically make you want to off yourself. Sometimes folks taking heart medicine still have heart attacks, ya wanna blame that in the particular heart medicine to and claim the doc was nonchalant about prescribing it?
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Is one of the side effects of the heart medicine that it causes a higher risk of heart attacks in some people? I think discussing that would be appropriate.
From everything I have heard, if you are forewarned of the risk of suicidal thoughts, you are much more likely to realize what is happening if those thoughts come up.
-
John Ringo's drug theory- if you haven't read it, it is worth reading:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/john-ringo/a-theory-on-las-vegas/10155111388257055/
-
^ "Part of the issue with the homeless is liberal city leadership seems to not only tolerate their presence, but actively encourage and accomodate them. "
Well, I don't know how well it worked, but here's a typical hand-fluttering solution --"homeless parking meters" where you could nickel and dime your way out of guilt.
(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/10/77/37/2357230/9/920x920.jpg)
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/How-homeless-meters-fare-elsewhere-3214609.php
One of these appeared on the sidewalk outside "my" building sometime around 2007 right near where a bunch of we smokers used to take our breaks.
Our jokes almost wrote themselves.
Terry
Pic credit in cited article.
-
So is the homeless guy supposed to put part of the change he gets in the meter near where he is sitting? That is an intersting pay to play idea.
-
So is the homeless guy supposed to put part of the change he gets in the meter near where he is sitting? That is an interesting pay to play idea.
Ayup. That was indeed one of the jokes.
Terry
-
They are ending up in places that absolutely not equipped to help them in any meaningful way. Mental hospitals won't fix everything, there are a lot of things that aren't "fixable", but they would at least be better equipped to handle the problems of these people.
IMO, the things that aren't fixable should be segregated from the ones that are; a lot of people who might voluntarily submit for inpatient treatment under the right conditions likely won't if they're going to be put in the same facility as people who fling poo or vote Green. Among those committed involuntarily or under duress, (i.e. intensive anger management or other treatment as a "voluntary" alternative sentence) being lumped in with incurable drooling idiots and other Congressional candidates is likely to be counterproductive to the recovery process.
-
Caffeine is an antidepressant. Just saying.
And you are (theoretically, at least) a mammal. That doesn't mean you can hear, see or do parkour like an ocelot.
-
IMO, the things that aren't fixable should be segregated from the ones that are; a lot of people who might voluntarily submit for inpatient treatment under the right conditions likely won't if they're going to be put in the same facility as people who fling poo or vote Green. Among those committed involuntarily or under duress, (i.e. intensive anger management or other treatment as a "voluntary" alternative sentence) being lumped in with incurable drooling idiots and other Congressional candidates is likely to be counterproductive to the recovery process.
There's segregation and then there's segregation. I'd picture something like 3-4 floors, minimum. The violent, the 'drooling idiots', the fixable, the 'mostly sane but subject to sporadic breaks from reality bad enough that they need to be in protective custody' could all be in separate areas. Plus a floor or two for the medical professionals located in the same building for ease of providing treatment.
Could also be different wings, the building plan is open.
From what I've read, many of the hospitals were absolutely clean and up to date for their time. A lot of the horror was the lack of medical knowledge at the time. They couldn't make it better.
I've seen some before and after photos for the asylums. They were not bad places at all, often very beautiful, until they were closed, abandoned, and exposed to the elements and vandals. Hell, some of the latter were probably occupants from when they were open wishing that they were still open.
-
There's segregation and then there's segregation. I'd picture something like 3-4 floors, minimum. The violent, the 'drooling idiots', the fixable, the 'mostly sane but subject to sporadic breaks from reality bad enough that they need to be in protective custody' could all be in separate areas. Plus a floor or two for the medical professionals located in the same building for ease of providing treatment.
Considering the first two need a lot more attention from a much more dedicated class of mental health professionals, I'd go more for completely separate facilities. Fixable and mostly sane get the vast majority of their treatment and monitoring from psychologists and counselors, whereas the more intense treatment for those with serious problems requires more time from psychiatrists and closer monitoring form nursing staff.
Somewhat like the difference between a maximum security prison and a county jail, and in some cases more like an addiction recovery facility. (Which is another purpose the lower-intensity facility would be well suited for, as it can address the root causes for functional addicts.)
On the security side, separate facilities would be helpful too; the "really crazy" aren't going to be getting weekend furloughs, whereas some of the least troubled might even be almost outpatient; allowed to go to work or other activities regularly. Separating sites means those don't have to go through the equivalent of a prison release every morning, while also reducing the risk of a high-functioning psychopath from the high-risk side slipping into the line of low-risk voluntary admission clients heading out to spend the holidays with their families.
-
On the security side, separate facilities would be helpful too; the "really crazy" aren't going to be getting weekend furloughs, whereas some of the least troubled might even be almost outpatient; allowed to go to work or other activities regularly. Separating sites means those don't have to go through the equivalent of a prison release every morning, while also reducing the risk of a high-functioning psychopath from the high-risk side slipping into the line of low-risk voluntary admission clients heading out to spend the holidays with their families.
I was thinking 'separate facilities' like how in some places, the county jail is attached to the county courthouse and in one case, the state capital.
It might be one building, having some walls in common, but they are very much separate facilities.
-
It might be one building, having some walls in common, but they are very much separate facilities.
Separate buildings on a single campus would be more practical from an access control standpoint; with no direct access between buildings, everybody goes in the front door of the place they need to be. Unsecured or minimally secured low-risk/voluntary facilities would likely be more like group homes. Maybe nearby, but off-campus.
-
;/ I'd venture to bet that every one of the mass shooters we've had in the last 10 years wouldn't meet the requirements to go into a mental hospital.
The idea of government deciding who is fit or not fit to enter society is abhorrent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union
-
;/ I'd venture to bet that every one of the mass shooters we've had in the last 10 years wouldn't meet the requirements to go into a mental hospital.
The idea of government deciding who is fit or not fit to enter society is abhorrent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union
Yes, there will always be abuses. But given that we're dealing with people on all sides of the equation, Due Process should get rid of most of the blatant abuses.
-
Yes, there will always be abuses. But given that we're dealing with people on all sides of the equation, Due Process should get rid of most of the balant abuses.
:laugh: "Balant??" You must mean "blatant." :police:
-
A person has to have balant in their life. Otherwise they'd go czray.
-
I don't think it would be abhorrent to round up the chronically homeless and put them in an institution. (https://www.yahoo.com/news/transient-charged-stabbing-man-death-restaurant-235930336.html)
These people should not be wandering around free.
-
I don't think it would be abhorrent to round up the chronically homeless and put them in an institution. (https://www.yahoo.com/news/transient-charged-stabbing-man-death-restaurant-235930336.html)
Disgustingly similar to what happened here in 2010: http://texannews.net/brandi-todd-mom-attacked-at-park-embraces-changed-life/
-
;/ I'd venture to bet that every one of the mass shooters we've had in the last 10 years wouldn't meet the requirements to go into a mental hospital.
The idea of government deciding who is fit or not fit to enter society is abhorrent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union
The fact is some people aren't fit to enter society, though.
They aren't going to decide to take themselves out voluntarily.
It is the job of the government to protect people from being attacked by others... including the insane.
-
It is the job of the government to protect people from being attacked by others... including the insane.
Is it though?*
The job of the government is to secure our society from outside threats, and to provide a framework for dispute resolution short of duels.
Proactively protecting people from other individuals would seem to be a little micro for the government. It would also seem to open the door to pretty dang invasive policies.
I've said before that a non-prison place for mentally ill folks to be cared for isn't a bad idea, but Jamis is has a point that those places, and entry into them, end up being pretty abusive in actual practice. Perhaps we need to take a hard look at some of our underlying assumptions.
*there is, of course, Supreme Court precident that it is not the job of the government to protect any one individual from another.
-
I am thinking back to past arguments we have had about the death penalty and the injustices that often happen when suspects are charged and run through the court system (not just death penalty cases). IMO, determining whether someone is mentally incompetent is a much more nebulous question than whether they killed someone or robbed the gas station. Due process is not 100% with something as straightforward as crime. I think it could easily be a LOT worse with locking up people someone has defined as "crazy".
Remember, it isn't the violent homeless guy mumbling in the alley that you should be thinking about. It is the normal guy who pissed off the wrong people and suddenly has the system working against him. It is the kid arrested for pot who gets committed for drug abuse because the judge gets kick backs from the people running the for-profit treatment center. I can see some of these idiots trying to define all sorts of things as "crazy-think" and trying to add them as reasons to have someone committed.
I think in this day and time we should not be giving BigGov more tools to use against us.
-
I've said before that a non-prison place for mentally ill folks to be cared for isn't a bad idea, but Jam is has a point that those places, and entry into them, end up being pretty abusive in actual practice.
In general, a large part of the issue has been that the people who decide whether someone can leave have a vested interest in one answer or the other, either because they make more money by keeping them in, or (as has been seen with a few drug rehab facilities) their insurance runs out and they're suddenly miraculously cured. There needs to be a 2-3 layer system of independent review and/or appeal on any involuntary confinement, bringing in unbiased professionals, and holding the facility accountable if it's found to have held someone an excessive time, or kicked them out when they were still clearly far from ready to return to society.
At the same time, courts (and the state laws they're applying) need to reflect society's need to be protected from these people. While I think the local court did all it could in the case of Brandi Todd's attacker, giving a maximum sentence without parole and maximum fine, without credit for time served in a mental hospital until he was deemed fit to stand trial, the simple fact is that a 20 year maximum sentence for AADW isn't nearly enough; hell, you can get the same for theft over $100k and theft over $200k opens a 99 year maximum. While I don't necessarily disagree with the theft penalties, (after all, stealing $200k, or even $100k from most people means taking the product of several years of their labor - effectively retroactively enslaving them for the period they spent earning it) intentionally causing disabling, potentially fatal injury to someone should come with a strong possibility that you will never be allowed to return to society.
I think in this day and time we should not be giving BigGov more tools to use against us.
In general, I'd agree, but with proper independent unbiased review of its actions, and full accountability for all involved, abuse of the tool becomes far less likely. In fact, by setting a precedent of review and accountability, one could then work to expand that to handle the abuses currently happening of government's existing tools.
-
I'm not convinced unbiased mental health professionals exist.
You say, for example:
holding the facility accountable if it's found to have held someone an excessive time, or kicked them out when they were still clearly far from ready to return to society.
For every expert you trot out saying the release was too early, or too late the facility could find one to say the opposite. It's not like mental health is a binary solution set.
I'm pretty sure the idea of an unbiased, accurate mental health oversight board is fantasy.
-
Add to the above.
My anecdotal experience with mental health types, psychologists and psychiatrists, has not left me with any respect for the profession.
To a person they were what we call "book smart" but beyond that a barely functioning human being. Once the subject was outside of their specialty they were essentially useless.
-
I'm not convinced unbiased mental health professionals exist.
As it stands, that's because they're largely unaccountable, even in the face of overwhelming evidence their assessment was completely wrong. I can't find it right now, but there is or was an inpatient facility near Fort Worth that was notorious for "curing" severely depressed people within days of their insurance running out, until a few of them committed suicide within days of being released. AFAIK, no one ever faced any serious repercussions over that, and I have no doubt they'd be more careful if they knew there was a real chance they could be facing manslaughter charges for releasing too soon, or some sort of false imprisonment for keeping them too long.
Add to the above.
My anecdotal experience with mental health types, psychologists and psychiatrists, has not left me with any respect for the profession.
To a person they were what we call "book smart" but beyond that a barely functioning human being. Once the subject was outside of their specialty they were essentially useless.
IOW, same as university professors, who also lack accountability for even grossly incompetent actions.
-
Started having issues with tramadol and a little depression linked to the hip replacement and all the SNAFUs associated with it.
Things in my head got really dark a few weeks ago.
I had recently learned of the potential connection here.
I pitched that stuff.
I was never informed of any such side effects by my PCP, nor was anything mentioned in the literature from the pharmacy.
-
So I'm at my local library and they have a shelf of .50 cent books. And I found this on there: The precis is that mental hospitals can be more residential than prison-like. (https://www.amazon.com/Institutions-Observed-Towards-Provision-Hospital/dp/0197246346/ref=la_B001IQZL3G_1_16_twi_pap_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1524353640&sr=1-16)
His point is that most of the people in a mental health place are not violent but they are occasionally disruptive. So there is no need for these max-security dungeons. You can and should have a pleasant place for these folks to live. And someone up thread mentioned that some of them were not what is found in the popular imagination.
So if there was a proper intake and review process and the places were more like a fenced-in resort than a prison would that take away some of the resistance to opening up more institutions?
-
They are ending up in places that absolutely not equipped to help them in any meaningful way. Mental hospitals won't fix everything, there are a lot of things that aren't "fixable", but they would at least be better equipped to handle the problems of these people.
I view institutions as providing a number of "services"
1. Provide the basic necessities of life to those too disabled to provide it for themselves.
2. Centralize care giving to increase efficiency. You can have all the specialists in the same facility, available to assist as necessary.
3. While they're probably going to be as expensive as a prison, they're likely to be cheaper than jail*, much less emergency rooms.
4. Protect society from those with those types of issues.
5. Protect themselves from other types of issues.
From what I've read, the real horror stories of the original asylums were really restricted to just a few of them, combined with that in many cases, their inability to treat many of the patients effectively was a horror in and of itself. Not the fault of the staff or facility, but a matter of limited technology. There was simply no way that it wasn't going to be a horror of varying visibility.
So, while it's not going to be pretty, properly funded asylums today could often be like halfway houses, and while not horror free even today, the least bad of a number of bad choices.
*Jail is actually more expensive, on average, than prison, on a per inmate-day basis.
His point is that most of the people in a mental health place are not violent but they are occasionally disruptive. So there is no need for these max-security dungeons. You can and should have a pleasant place for these folks to live. And someone up thread mentioned that some of them were not what is found in the popular imagination.
Indeed. If you look at some of the old imagery that was taken before the asylums were shut down and abandoned, many were very beautiful facilities. They looked very different in proper lighting before the art was stripped out, people vandalized and graffitied them up, the roof collapsed, etc...
-
Story is a bit dated but related to the topic none the less .... Found while researching the institution on Ancrestry . com ...
[tinfoil]
https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1901/10/26/101084326.pdf
-
the least bad of a number of bad choices.
I think we all agree that the current situation is worse. Many of the homeless are supposed to be self-medicating, but either they are not, or they are using non-prescription meds.
They are not sheltered from the elements.
They are not being feed on a consistent basis.
They can be a danger to others.
They are easily victimized.
I believe we have a duty to care of those less fortunate. And I agree that needs to be "levels" or "degrees" of care, from short-term to long-term.
I don't know what tge best way is to minimize abuse and mistakes, but we can do better then the current situation.
-
I think what we all need to remember is that just because the govt CAN help someone doesn't necessarily mean they should.
I think that mindset is one of the problems with current society in this country. There are private entities out there that offer help to homeless people. Donate to those groups. I am very reluctant to set up a new bureaucratic system just because a few people could use some help.
-
Does this guy make it harder to support reopening the hospitals? (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/24/florida-sheriff-takes-zero-tolerance-approach-to-school-threats-arrests-almost-30-students-in-2-months.html)
Because these sorts are everywhere. And if not placed under some sort of stringent control they're exactly the sort that will send innocent folks off to the home.
Or maybe, for some, he's doing the prudent thing.