Mental illness...
- Thread starter Larry Gude
- Start date
Dakota
~~~~~~~
Larry, excellent article...
These tragedies are the inevitable outcome of five decades of failed mental-health policies. During the 1960s, we began to empty the state mental hospitals but failed to put in place programs to ensure that the released patients received treatment after they left. By the 1980s, the results were evident
But how do we solve this? If you have mental health treatment and medication available for free, it costs money and right now, this is and has always been the first thing on the chopping block when spending needs to be cut.
Sad - it really is!
These tragedies are the inevitable outcome of five decades of failed mental-health policies. During the 1960s, we began to empty the state mental hospitals but failed to put in place programs to ensure that the released patients received treatment after they left. By the 1980s, the results were evident
But how do we solve this? If you have mental health treatment and medication available for free, it costs money and right now, this is and has always been the first thing on the chopping block when spending needs to be cut.
Sad - it really is!
It's mor then money, you can't pay to have someone committed for observation. All to often the mentally ill individual doesn't see the problem so they aren't going to self commit. Because they have rights, the only way a person with a mental illness will be dealt with is if they commit a crime, Even in jail the state will not force treatment upon them.
Because they have rights...
Larry Gude
Strung Out
How much did Saturday cost? How much did Va Tech cost? How much did Ft. Hood cost?
The article is postulating something like 1,600 murders a year likely related to crazy folks.
Never mind the medical system as a whole; I'd fix that over night and get something else done tomorrow afternoon. We'd save so much money no longer wasted on people who refuse to put down the Cheetos that there'd be plenty of money to serve an actual health crisis like psychotic crazy people.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
As I have argued elsewhere, Ft. Hood, Tucson, Va Tech, the beltway sniper, every one of those people had numerous people who said "Not surprised" after it happened. As I suggested elsewhere, ask Sheriff Dupnik what got in his departments way of having that guy, at the very least, taken into custody and forced to have an evaluation given he's already threatened lives.
This is not some huge problem and the costs of doing nothing are grave. We can fix this.
We can.
Dakota
~~~~~~~
How much did Saturday cost? How much did Va Tech cost? How much did Ft. Hood cost?
The article is postulating something like 1,600 murders a year likely related to crazy folks.
Never mind the medical system as a whole; I'd fix that over night and get something else done tomorrow afternoon. We'd save so much money no longer wasted on people who refuse to put down the Cheetos that there'd be plenty of money to serve an actual health crisis like psychotic crazy people.
And I understand your point and agree. I also feel that society wants to be protected and minimize risks of being harmed but on the other hand, they don't want their rights violated, so an involuntary/emergency commitment has to cautiously done. In the meantime, states need to look elsewhere on cutting services for the mentally ill. These people need to be treated and medicated if necessary. I fear we will see this become a growing problem because many states have indeed cut mental heath services and prescription programs.
twinoaks207
Having Fun!
Like everything else, it's a pendulum. We used to shut people away if they were even a half bubble off. Then we went in the opposite direction and closed all of the institutions because we didn't want to take away someone's "rights". And no, we didn't put any other programs in place for those who truly needed help. As we always do, we assumed that the same mold fit everyone. Well, it doesn't. Some people can adapt and cope with living life a half bubble off and do so successfully without harming anyone, including themselves. And some people can't handle it and they end up harming someone -- themself or others.
And, until we finally put on our big kid panties and realize that sometimes (to quote Star Trek and military thinking) "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", we will continue to have mentally ill people having psychotic breaks and harming others because we are too damned afraid of being sued for violating one person's rights.
There is a balance between protecting the individual and protecting society as a whole. We, as a nation, have lost the ability to see and find that balance, and our country is much the worse for it.
And, until we finally put on our big kid panties and realize that sometimes (to quote Star Trek and military thinking) "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", we will continue to have mentally ill people having psychotic breaks and harming others because we are too damned afraid of being sued for violating one person's rights.
There is a balance between protecting the individual and protecting society as a whole. We, as a nation, have lost the ability to see and find that balance, and our country is much the worse for it.
Annoying_Boy
New Member
Good article, but nothing that you don't see right here in Saint Mary's County.
The county pays 100k Harry to outsource the problem of dealing with the homeless and a host of other nonprofits play the role of providing drug and alcohol treatment.
Problem solved.
Lexington Park is the poster child of success.
The county pays 100k Harry to outsource the problem of dealing with the homeless and a host of other nonprofits play the role of providing drug and alcohol treatment.
Problem solved.
Lexington Park is the poster child of success.
kwillia
n/a
Arizona has one of the least restrictive laws when it comes to detaining apparently mentally ill people against their will. Under the state's broad involuntary-commitment statute, the government can mandate in-patient treatment for anyone determined to be "persistently or acutely disabled." That could include a broad range of seemingly troubled individuals. By comparison, many other states limit involuntary commitment only to people shown to be a danger to themselves or others, or who are found to be completely unable to take care of themselves.
[/B]
Before Tucson rampage, a powerful law went unused - Yahoo! News
Under Nevada's involuntary-commitment law, for example, prior to confining someone the state must demonstrate that the person "is mentally ill and, because of that illness, is likely to harm himself or others if allowed his liberty." In Connecticut, someone can be committed only if he or she has "psychiatric disabilities and is dangerous to himself or herself or others or gravely disabled" -- and "gravely disabled" has usually been interpreted to mean that the person is unable on his own to obtain adequate food, shelter and clothing. Under those standards, some mental-health law experts say it might have been hard to make a case for committing Loughner.
The area of involuntary-commitment law highlights a tension within any democracy: balancing the rights of the individual against public-safety concerns. A landmark 1979 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, Addington v. Texas, made it harder for the government to commit people against their will, requiring officials to justify any such detention with "clear and convincing" evidence. Earlier, the standard had been a "preponderance of the evidence," which is used in most civil cases.
[/B]
Before Tucson rampage, a powerful law went unused - Yahoo! News
Under Nevada's involuntary-commitment law, for example, prior to confining someone the state must demonstrate that the person "is mentally ill and, because of that illness, is likely to harm himself or others if allowed his liberty." In Connecticut, someone can be committed only if he or she has "psychiatric disabilities and is dangerous to himself or herself or others or gravely disabled" -- and "gravely disabled" has usually been interpreted to mean that the person is unable on his own to obtain adequate food, shelter and clothing. Under those standards, some mental-health law experts say it might have been hard to make a case for committing Loughner.
The area of involuntary-commitment law highlights a tension within any democracy: balancing the rights of the individual against public-safety concerns. A landmark 1979 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, Addington v. Texas, made it harder for the government to commit people against their will, requiring officials to justify any such detention with "clear and convincing" evidence. Earlier, the standard had been a "preponderance of the evidence," which is used in most civil cases.
Lugnut
I'm Rick James #####!
Why are you all picking on the "Mentally Ill"??? 
Dont know if you all noticed but there has been a surge in commercials/PSA's over the past couple years trying to "educate" the public and reduce bias against people with "mental illness"
Those nice people arent dangerous... They're just "Mentally Ill."
Dont know if you all noticed but there has been a surge in commercials/PSA's over the past couple years trying to "educate" the public and reduce bias against people with "mental illness"
Those nice people arent dangerous... They're just "Mentally Ill."