it seemed like a good idea at the time! rights for the mentally ill

[Old Rocks]

And they're having kids, too. And raising them under the radar in our highly mobile society..and those kids are amazingly, just as fucked up or more than their insane, abusive parents! Go figure!

That was done during Reagan's years.

 

[editec]

depending on your age: there was a time in this country when the mentally ill were removed from the streets and locked up in asylums...(the name says it all)...then there was a civil rights movement for the mentally ill to stop the forced sterilazations and things like that...

unfortunately, instead of allowing improvement of care...it allowed no care...you cant force someone to be medicated now...so the result is many homeless who are truly mentally ill..nor only are some a threat to themselves but many times they are a threat to others...sometimes they are not a threat to anyone. my point being...it seemed like a good idea at the time and has totally backfired with the dumping of mentally ill by families and society.

Yup!

But the reformers of mental health did not want the asylums to be emptied, they merely wanted those places NOT to be the snake pits they were.

The move to dump those people n the street was entirely a cost savings measure.

 

[chanel]

The woman who ate her baby's brain a few weeks ago was schizophrenic She should have been in an institution and never should have been allowed to take that baby home. In NJ "patients rights" supercede public safety. How many more babies need to die before they start looking at the big picture?

 

[Emma]

In NJ "patients rights" supercede public safety.

No, it doesn't.

 

[AllieBaba]

People don't care about babies.

Asylums, like prisons, are always snake pits because they are full of crazy, delusional people who will and do prey upon each other. Unless you have 1:1 care for them, you can't guarantee the safety or ethical treatment of anyone.

But unfortunately, if their families can't or won't care for them, and they are loony, they belong locked up.

When the mental hospital shut down they started using state-run group homes called the training center to house these people in. They take these guys out, and every now and then "lose" one in Pendleton or the surrounding area...they do not notify the public, no one ever hears about it, until somebody gets killed. A woman living along the river in a river-front apartment on the levy was killed when one of these guys crawled in her window and slit her throat.

 

[Diuretic]

I don't know the percentages but I would think the number of dangerous people who are mentally ill would be quite small. I think there are probably more who are a danger to themselves before they're a danger to others. And many are just not well and require treatment and not custody. The really potentially or actually dangerous people should be held in extremely secure custody, that's obvious I know; but I reiterate, those numbers would be small I think.

 

[Emma]

I don't know the percentages but I would think the number of dangerous people who are mentally ill would be quite small. I think there are probably more who are a danger to themselves before they're a danger to others. And many are just not well and require treatment and not custody. The really potentially or actually dangerous people should be held in extremely secure custody, that's obvious I know; but I reiterate, those numbers would be small I think.

Sociopaths who know what they're doing and know the consequences of their actions are by far the most dangerous. And they are not legally "insane".


(A mental defect or disease that makes it impossible for a person to understand the wrongfulness of his acts or, even if he understands them, to distinguish right from wrong. Defendants who are criminally insane cannot be convicted of a crime, since criminal conduct involves the conscious intent to do wrong -- a choice that the criminally insane cannot meaningfully make. criminal insanity - legal definition )

 

[Jay Canuck]

now the mentally ill are showing up at town meetings...oh well at least they have a place to go.

 

[Annie]

depending on your age: there was a time in this country when the mentally ill were removed from the streets and locked up in asylums...(the name says it all)...then there was a civil rights movement for the mentally ill to stop the forced sterilazations and things like that...

unfortunately, instead of allowing improvement of care...it allowed no care...you cant force someone to be medicated now...so the result is many homeless who are truly mentally ill..nor only are some a threat to themselves but many times they are a threat to others...sometimes they are not a threat to anyone. my point being...it seemed like a good idea at the time and has totally backfired with the dumping of mentally ill by families and society.

I agree. My older sister had Down's syndrome. My parents chose to institutionalize her, way back and she became a ward of the state. There was a time I thought they were so wrong, which of course compounded their own misgivings. As I got older with a family of my own, I realized how good a choice they had made, for my brother and I. Not only did she have Downs, but she was also deaf, had severe heart problems.

Today as an educator I look at 'self-contained' special ed classrooms. There are Downs and much those afflicted with much more debilitating illnesses. Better they be under alternative funding than 'education', since without a brain stem, little education will be happening. So school districts are paying for a nurse, aid, and teacher for a child that is put on a bus every morning, when not in the hospital, with said nurse. Those dollars are coming out of the monies allocated for education.

Then there are those with a variety of mental illnesses, that at one time would have been institutionalized, but today are 'homeless' because they don't take their meds. There are those in families that also don't take their meds, but families cannot get them committed. It's so wrong.

 

[Diuretic]

I don't know the percentages but I would think the number of dangerous people who are mentally ill would be quite small. I think there are probably more who are a danger to themselves before they're a danger to others. And many are just not well and require treatment and not custody. The really potentially or actually dangerous people should be held in extremely secure custody, that's obvious I know; but I reiterate, those numbers would be small I think.

Sociopaths who know what they're doing and know the consequences of their actions are by far the most dangerous. And they are not legally "insane".


(A mental defect or disease that makes it impossible for a person to understand the wrongfulness of his acts or, even if he understands them, to distinguish right from wrong. Defendants who are criminally insane cannot be convicted of a crime, since criminal conduct involves the conscious intent to do wrong -- a choice that the criminally insane cannot meaningfully make. criminal insanity - legal definition )

Most sociopaths aren't dangerous. I'd suggest there are quite a few around the place. Some might look like they have a personality disorder such as narcissism but they could well be sociopaths. And in some instances being a sociopath can be useful - in business for example - anywhere a conscience might hinder performance.

The problem with the law regarding insanity is that it's old and in many jurisdictions it's still based on M'Naghten's Case and hasn't been brought up to date with current knowledge, that can be changed though.

 

[Emma]

I don't know the percentages but I would think the number of dangerous people who are mentally ill would be quite small. I think there are probably more who are a danger to themselves before they're a danger to others. And many are just not well and require treatment and not custody. The really potentially or actually dangerous people should be held in extremely secure custody, that's obvious I know; but I reiterate, those numbers would be small I think.

Sociopaths who know what they're doing and know the consequences of their actions are by far the most dangerous. And they are not legally "insane".


(A mental defect or disease that makes it impossible for a person to understand the wrongfulness of his acts or, even if he understands them, to distinguish right from wrong. Defendants who are criminally insane cannot be convicted of a crime, since criminal conduct involves the conscious intent to do wrong -- a choice that the criminally insane cannot meaningfully make. criminal insanity - legal definition )

Most sociopaths aren't dangerous. I'd suggest there are quite a few around the place. Some might look like they have a personality disorder such as narcissism but they could well be sociopaths. And in some instances being a sociopath can be useful - in business for example - anywhere a conscience might hinder performance.

The problem with the law regarding insanity is that it's old and in many jurisdictions it's still based on M'Naghten's Case and hasn't been brought up to date with current knowledge, that can be changed though.

I didn't say most sociopaths are dangerous. But it can be argued that many criminals fit that psychiatric profile (violent or not).

 

[Diuretic]

Sociopaths who know what they're doing and know the consequences of their actions are by far the most dangerous. And they are not legally "insane".


(A mental defect or disease that makes it impossible for a person to understand the wrongfulness of his acts or, even if he understands them, to distinguish right from wrong. Defendants who are criminally insane cannot be convicted of a crime, since criminal conduct involves the conscious intent to do wrong -- a choice that the criminally insane cannot meaningfully make. criminal insanity - legal definition )

Most sociopaths aren't dangerous. I'd suggest there are quite a few around the place. Some might look like they have a personality disorder such as narcissism but they could well be sociopaths. And in some instances being a sociopath can be useful - in business for example - anywhere a conscience might hinder performance.

The problem with the law regarding insanity is that it's old and in many jurisdictions it's still based on M'Naghten's Case and hasn't been brought up to date with current knowledge, that can be changed though.

I didn't say most sociopaths are dangerous. But it can be argued that many criminals fit that psychiatric profile (violent or not).

Sorry, my error. I would agree that many criminals are sociopathic for sure, you only have to have a conversation with some of them to realise that they don't give a damn about the effects of their actions so yes, I think you've made a very good point.

 

[chanel]

In NJ "patients rights" supercede public safety.

No, it doesn't.

June 27, 2009
A bill that would allow state officials to force people with a serious mental illness to attend outpatient treatment if a judge finds they are a danger to themselves or others has been sent to Gov. Jon Corzine

The bill, which won final legislative approval on Thursday, requires the state Department of Human Services to create a screening system under which licensed mental health professionals, with the help of family members, would evaluate patients who may present a danger to themselves, others or property because they refuse to take prescribed medications.

Mental health advocates have been split over the issue since the bill was introduced in 2005. Some advocates argue forcing people into treatment violates their civil rights, while others say the bill protects the public and patients who may be too ill to recognize the severity of their condition.

N.J. Legislature passes bill allowing forced treatment to mentally ill, awaiting Corzine approval - NJ.com

Right now, the rights of patients supercede public safety.

 

[JenT]

I know many homeless and there are a few I am sincerely concerned about. One looks like a wraith and wanders around trying to hide. Her biggest fear is being locked up in a mental place. She would rather live in her own little world riding the bus hardly talking to anyone than be "treated".

I've seen how the mentally ill are treated by underpaid overworked staff. So many want just to be left alone and stare out the window, but staff will come in, briskly yell at them to get ready for their programs, and they are like little children weeping to stay home. Some JUST WANT TO BE LEFT ALONE.

I thought it was so undignified to drag these suffering people to day care centers where they are endlessly forced to work on childish art projects because some mental health nazi has decided they are happier being forced into the world.

When I'm that old, and if I want to sit and stare out the window, I hope I'm not in a situation where I'm FORCED to be in a loud obnoxious institution cutting out paper dolls by a rude staff marking down that they brushed my teeth when the smell of rot coming from my unbrushed mouth is putrid.

And where the policy is that if you walk in on two mental patients "in the act" even though the woman is no where near capable of understanding what is happening to her or able to object and is medicated into submission, staff is to close the door and give them privacy. I suppose that calms the aggressiveness of a lot of male mental health patients nicely.

I think if I'm ever diagnosed with altzheimers in my old age, I'll just go to Syria and start preaching the Gospel, that would be a quicker end.

Oh wait! I'll just sign into ObamaCare, I'd probably go just as fast.

 

[Emma]

In NJ "patients rights" supercede public safety.

No, it doesn't.

June 27, 2009
A bill that would allow state officials to force people with a serious mental illness to attend outpatient treatment if a judge finds they are a danger to themselves or others has been sent to Gov. Jon Corzine

The bill, which won final legislative approval on Thursday, requires the state Department of Human Services to create a screening system under which licensed mental health professionals, with the help of family members, would evaluate patients who may present a danger to themselves, others or property because they refuse to take prescribed medications.

Mental health advocates have been split over the issue since the bill was introduced in 2005. Some advocates argue forcing people into treatment violates their civil rights, while others say the bill protects the public and patients who may be too ill to recognize the severity of their condition.

N.J. Legislature passes bill allowing forced treatment to mentally ill, awaiting Corzine approval - NJ.com

Right now, the rights of patients supercede public safety.

No, they don't.

NJ does have laws forcing involuntary commitment of those deemed a danger to themselves or others. What this law does is allow for court-ordered assisted outpatient treatment.
---------
New Jersey, like each state has its own rules governing when there can be a legal intervention to get treatment for a person with a severe mental illness. New Jersey rules apply to someone who needs treatment but is unable to seek it voluntarily. New Jersey mental health laws outline what steps must be followed and what standards must be met before someone can be ordered into treatment in the hospital or in the community. New Jersey is one of only eight states that do not allow court-ordered treatment in the community, often called “assisted outpatient treatment” or “outpatient commitment.” New Jersey still uses a treatment standard based primarily on a person’s likelihood of being dangerous instead of using a more progressive “need for treatment” standard as in many states. The following summary can be helpful for a family member trying to get court-ordered treatment for a loved one.

For inpatient care, a person must be a danger to self/others/property, unwilling to be admitted voluntarily, and in need of treatment. Danger to self explicitly includes the inability, without assistance, to satisfy need for nourishment, essential medical care or shelter.

Treatment Advocacy Center - New Jersey


I am conflicted on whether this proposed bill is a good thing; I can see potential for a lot of abuse.

So be careful what you wish for. You may just get it.

 

[Terry]

depending on your age: there was a time in this country when the mentally ill were removed from the streets and locked up in asylums...(the name says it all)...then there was a civil rights movement for the mentally ill to stop the forced sterilazations and things like that...

unfortunately, instead of allowing improvement of care...it allowed no care...you cant force someone to be medicated now...so the result is many homeless who are truly mentally ill..nor only are some a threat to themselves but many times they are a threat to others...sometimes they are not a threat to anyone. my point being...it seemed like a good idea at the time and has totally backfired with the dumping of mentally ill by families and society.

This subject touches close to home being I just learned that my brother is a paranoid Skitzod. He isn't a danger to anyone nor are most that suffer from this dieased brain. They generally live in a total panic that someone is out to harm them. The reason why these mentally ill people are labled as dangerious is because in order to get a family member to get treated whom is over the legal age is to deem him a danger to himself or others. I understand that there is legislation that would help families deal with this in a different way but I'm not totally liking this Bill HR 2502.

I had a long talk with National Alliance on Mentally Illness (NAMI). It was disheartening to hear my options to get help for my brother who is 54 years old, in a wheelchair, and deaf suffering from this mental diease which was brought on by his brain injury that put him in that chair.

The options are: Get a judge to deem him unfit, take away all his rights and give them to me or the state...basically institutionalize him. This right now I think has to be done for my brother to get well but other family members cannot bring themselves to do this. In all fairness they see it as harming my brother after all the majority including my brother think the Gov. or other's are after them. This is why they will not seek medical help, or continue their visits to a doctor. Having him commited will only enhance his fear and dullisions. Until there is a better legislation that gives Family tools to help get the treatment and keep them in treatment we will always throw these people out. It's not insurance that is the problem or healthcare. It's because he is of legal age, I cannot do shit unless I force the issue.

My brother is no danger to himself or other's...but to get him help..I have to lie and say he is and I was told that I better give a performance of my life when I do this or he won't get treated. Even if I did this, he only gets a stay in the hospital for 12 days MAX. It's insane.

 

[Terry]

Family need tools that not only addressing getting initial treatment but to keep that treatment going, once they are out of the hospital most of these patients stop meds, and or not on the correct dosage so the delusions continue, then the families are back to square one. EDIT TO ADD: Once the family member commits a mentally ill skitzod lets say, when they get out, and stop meds...they take off, the family doesn't know what happened to them....the mentally ill took off because what the family did confirmed to the mentally ill person that he is right, people are after him therefore run away. There isn't an easy answer for this at all.

 

[editec]

well, in that case, so did dukakis when he was gov here. deinstitutionalization has been a trend in mental health since the early 1900's.

the problem is that there is an irreducible number of people who really can't take care of themselves, and they don't wear signs.

and a hell of a lot of em ain't even crazy

If a government can solve pressing political problems by labelling individuals as "mentally ill" they will. The scary bit is that it isn't/wasn't only done in totalitarian societies.

Sure it was.

The Soviet Union was famous for doing that to political types who they preferred to really punish.

We don't do it because then we'd have to pay for their upkeep.

Instead we've creatred the Democratic and Republican parties for the truly insane to play with.

 

[Diuretic]

There was a case here some years ago that illustrates my point.

Phillip Arantz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's brief.