Mental Illness and Gun Control

task0778

Diamond Member
Mar 10, 2017
12,247
11,350
2,265
Texas hill country
Note: the essay below was published in 2016, but it is obviously still relevant today. It's pretty long, but I think worth your time. I tried to include some salient points here:


The recent spate of high-profile mass shootings has inspired yet another "national conversation" about mental illness, with everyone agreeing that the country has a problem. Unfortunately, isolated instances of violence are how the subject typically ends up in the news cycle. But the more mundane social repercussions of mental illness, while perhaps not as headline-worthy, are pervasive and acutely felt nonetheless.

On any given day, one in five people in jail or prison has a severe mental illness. This means that people with serious mental illness are ten times more likely to inhabit a jail cell than a hospital bed. Besides contributing to jail and prison over-crowding, mentally ill people are especially vulnerable to victimization by fellow prisoners, spend more time in solitary confinement, and become suicidal behind bars at higher rates than non-mentally ill inmates. They also cost the correctional system considerably more than otherwise healthy prisoners.

The challenge facing prisons is just one consequence of decades of de-institutionalization policies. From a nationwide peak of around 560,000 psychiatric beds in 1955, the census has been whittled down to about 35,000 today — about half of what experts estimate is actually needed. In the absence of such beds, patients will continue to be warehoused behind bars, lie on emergency-room gurneys for days, and languish in nursing homes. One-third of the nations homeless will still be comprised of the untreated mentally ill, who are at far greater risk of being preyed upon than of harming someone else.

The lesson of downsizing state psychiatric facilities — no less powerful for being familiar — is that good intentions are not enough. Too many sick people are now caught in a pernicious cycle, rotating in and out of emergency rooms, crisis hospitalization, incarceration, homelessness, and back again. Its no wonder some of the strongest supporters of mental-health reform are police, district attorneys, corrections officials, and emergency-room physicians.

These problems afflict roughly 10 million Americans, or just over 4% of the population. Mainly diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar (manic-depressive illness), or major depression, such individuals are chronically or periodically unable to care for themselves or are suicidal. At times, they may be dangerous to the public. Relative to other psychiatric patients, those with severe mental illness are far more likely to need medication, intensive supervision, and even involuntary treatment at some point in their lives. But they arent getting the help they need, and the governments good intentions are often the very thing preventing their getting appropriate treatment.

To understand a key source of the problem, we should compare severe mental illness to "mental health." The Centers for Disease Control describes mental health as a composite of "emotional well-being," "psychological well-being," and "social well-being." According to government statistics, only about 17% of adults are considered to be in a state of optimal mental health — the rest, apparently, need some kind of professional assistance to achieve optimal "wellness."

Sandwiched between mental health and severe mental illness is a clinical category called mental illness. One recent national survey estimates that nearly 18% of those individuals older than 18, or about 43.7 million people annually, are mentally ill — meaning they fulfill diagnostic criteria for any condition listed in psychiatrys official diagnostic handbook, ranging from attention deficit disorder to panic attacks to anorexia. The severity and chronicity of these conditions varies dramatically, with most conditions resolving on their own, while others are best served with time-limited psychiatric care; some may require hospitalization and long-term medication and therapy.


[I'm guessing the number and size of the problem is worse today, especially in view of the lockdowns. Studies suggest mental illness cases and suicides have gone up markedly over the last year.]

The distinction between mental health, mental illness, and severe mental illness is crucial, because it leads us to different clinical and policy prescriptions. The vague boundaries of "mental health" enabled a variety of advocates whose true agenda is grievance and social reform to claim that their concerns fell under its rubric, as historian of psychiatry Gerald Grob has observed. As a result, he writes, "persons with serious and persistent mental illnesses...[are] forced to compete, often unsuccessfully, with other groups that now [define] their needs in terms of mental health."

The problem we have today is that the system is geared more toward mental health than severe mental illness. In fact, the federal governments lead agency on mental health, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, has explicitly stated this as its goal. Rather than focusing on reducing homelessness, hospitalization, or incarceration among people with serious mental illness, it concentrates federal and state efforts on delivering amorphous "behavioral health" to everyone else.

This is profoundly misguided. But it may not be surprising after a half-century of inept leadership, Medicaids financial incentives gone awry, and clashing ideas about the nature of the forces (psychological, biological, and social) that lead to psychopathology — and that, in turn, point toward the best possible therapeutic strategies. Ours is a problem-ridden system that could be markedly improved with strong political leadership.

We need a mental-illness system in which care for the sickest of the sick is a priority. If the federal government intends to take mental illness seriously, Congress and the next administration must be keenly responsive to the most vulnerable patients.


It isn't just a gov't problem, although that is probably not insignificant. We've gotta change society's perspective on mental illness to remove the stigma attached to it. I would say that helping mentally ill people might reduce gun violence more than any gun control legislation.
 
Last edited:
Note: the essay below was published in 2016, but it is obviously still relevant today. It's pretty long, but I think worth your time. I tried to include some salient points here:


The recent spate of high-profile mass shootings has inspired yet another "national conversation" about mental illness, with everyone agreeing that the country has a problem. Unfortunately, isolated instances of violence are how the subject typically ends up in the news cycle. But the more mundane social repercussions of mental illness, while perhaps not as headline-worthy, are pervasive and acutely felt nonetheless.

On any given day, one in five people in jail or prison has a severe mental illness. This means that people with serious mental illness are ten times more likely to inhabit a jail cell than a hospital bed. Besides contributing to jail and prison over-crowding, mentally ill people are especially vulnerable to victimization by fellow prisoners, spend more time in solitary confinement, and become suicidal behind bars at higher rates than non-mentally ill inmates. They also cost the correctional system considerably more than otherwise healthy prisoners.

The challenge facing prisons is just one consequence of decades of de-institutionalization policies. From a nationwide peak of around 560,000 psychiatric beds in 1955, the census has been whittled down to about 35,000 today — about half of what experts estimate is actually needed. In the absence of such beds, patients will continue to be warehoused behind bars, lie on emergency-room gurneys for days, and languish in nursing homes. One-third of the nations homeless will still be comprised of the untreated mentally ill, who are at far greater risk of being preyed upon than of harming someone else.

The lesson of downsizing state psychiatric facilities — no less powerful for being familiar — is that good intentions are not enough. Too many sick people are now caught in a pernicious cycle, rotating in and out of emergency rooms, crisis hospitalization, incarceration, homelessness, and back again. Its no wonder some of the strongest supporters of mental-health reform are police, district attorneys, corrections officials, and emergency-room physicians.

These problems afflict roughly 10 million Americans, or just over 4% of the population. Mainly diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar (manic-depressive illness), or major depression, such individuals are chronically or periodically unable to care for themselves or are suicidal. At times, they may be dangerous to the public. Relative to other psychiatric patients, those with severe mental illness are far more likely to need medication, intensive supervision, and even involuntary treatment at some point in their lives. But they arent getting the help they need, and the governments good intentions are often the very thing preventing their getting appropriate treatment.

To understand a key source of the problem, we should compare severe mental illness to "mental health." The Centers for Disease Control describes mental health as a composite of "emotional well-being," "psychological well-being," and "social well-being." According to government statistics, only about 17% of adults are considered to be in a state of optimal mental health — the rest, apparently, need some kind of professional assistance to achieve optimal "wellness."

Sandwiched between mental health and severe mental illness is a clinical category called mental illness. One recent national survey estimates that nearly 18% of those individuals older than 18, or about 43.7 million people annually, are mentally ill — meaning they fulfill diagnostic criteria for any condition listed in psychiatrys official diagnostic handbook, ranging from attention deficit disorder to panic attacks to anorexia. The severity and chronicity of these conditions varies dramatically, with most conditions resolving on their own, while others are best served with time-limited psychiatric care; some may require hospitalization and long-term medication and therapy.


[I'm guessing the number and size of the problem is worse today, especially in view of the lockdowns. Studies suggest mental illness cases and suicides have gone up markedly over the last year.]

The distinction between mental health, mental illness, and severe mental illness is crucial, because it leads us to different clinical and policy prescriptions. The vague boundaries of "mental health" enabled a variety of advocates whose true agenda is grievance and social reform to claim that their concerns fell under its rubric, as historian of psychiatry Gerald Grob has observed. As a result, he writes, "persons with serious and persistent mental illnesses...[are] forced to compete, often unsuccessfully, with other groups that now [define] their needs in terms of mental health."

The problem we have today is that the system is geared more toward mental health than severe mental illness. In fact, the federal governments lead agency on mental health, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, has explicitly stated this as its goal. Rather than focusing on reducing homelessness, hospitalization, or incarceration among people with serious mental illness, it concentrates federal and state efforts on delivering amorphous "behavioral health" to everyone else.

This is profoundly misguided. But it may not be surprising after a half-century of inept leadership, Medicaids financial incentives gone awry, and clashing ideas about the nature of the forces (psychological, biological, and social) that lead to psychopathology — and that, in turn, point toward the best possible therapeutic strategies. Ours is a problem-ridden system that could be markedly improved with strong political leadership.

We need a mental-illness system in which care for the sickest of the sick is a priority. If the federal government intends to take mental illness seriously, Congress and the next administration must be keenly responsive to the most vulnerable patients.


It isn't just a gov't problem, although that is probably not insignificant. We've gotta change society's perspective on mental illness to remove the stigma attached to it. I would say that helping mentally ill people might reduce gun violence more than any gun control legislation.

I've heard this before on "society's perspective. I'm not upset with you by any means so please don't take it that way. I'm furious. I work with a lot of mentally ill people.

We don't need to work on "removing the stigma". When someone says, "remove the stigma", I hear there will be no funding get used to dealing with it on your own. Consider that in many middle schools across the US, if you aren't cutting, suicidal, been admitted to a psych ward or have a diagnosis then you aren't cool. That's how that babbling BS filters down to kids.

There's no money in mental illness. That's why. Bed availability has decreased significantly. You can have someone that is experiencing a psychotic break but if they don't answer a very strict to the letter set of questions indicating they are actively homicidal/suicidal then they aren't getting in.

But, let's say they actually do get in. They are medicated and given prescriptions and released. Treat and release. The facilities are limited to short term stays that are geared towards stabilization. Then what? Many times these people are over 18 and they can come and go as they please. They don't like or can't afford the medication. You have now entered into "rights" territory.

There are none or relatively few long term facilities. That system was privatized through out most of the US. Then after having achieved that there was the realization that it cost money.

So, yeah. I'm a little pissed off when someone says "remove the stigma".
 
Last edited:
I have been posting the fact that until American politicians focus on the mentally I'll mindset of these mass shooters, we are not going to solve these mass shooting incidents.
These shooters , a majority of them, have mental problems. It is a mentally I'll people problem that we have, not a gun control problem. This is at the root of the problem.
 
I have been posting the fact that until American politicians focus on the mentally I'll mindset of these mass shooters, we are not going to solve these mass shooting incidents.
These shooters , a majority of them, have mental problems. It is a mentally I'll people problem that we have, not a gun control problem. This is at the root of the problem.
but who decides what and who are mentally ill???

 
Note: the essay below was published in 2016, but it is obviously still relevant today. It's pretty long, but I think worth your time. I tried to include some salient points here:


The recent spate of high-profile mass shootings has inspired yet another "national conversation" about mental illness, with everyone agreeing that the country has a problem. Unfortunately, isolated instances of violence are how the subject typically ends up in the news cycle. But the more mundane social repercussions of mental illness, while perhaps not as headline-worthy, are pervasive and acutely felt nonetheless.

On any given day, one in five people in jail or prison has a severe mental illness. This means that people with serious mental illness are ten times more likely to inhabit a jail cell than a hospital bed. Besides contributing to jail and prison over-crowding, mentally ill people are especially vulnerable to victimization by fellow prisoners, spend more time in solitary confinement, and become suicidal behind bars at higher rates than non-mentally ill inmates. They also cost the correctional system considerably more than otherwise healthy prisoners.

The challenge facing prisons is just one consequence of decades of de-institutionalization policies. From a nationwide peak of around 560,000 psychiatric beds in 1955, the census has been whittled down to about 35,000 today — about half of what experts estimate is actually needed. In the absence of such beds, patients will continue to be warehoused behind bars, lie on emergency-room gurneys for days, and languish in nursing homes. One-third of the nations homeless will still be comprised of the untreated mentally ill, who are at far greater risk of being preyed upon than of harming someone else.

The lesson of downsizing state psychiatric facilities — no less powerful for being familiar — is that good intentions are not enough. Too many sick people are now caught in a pernicious cycle, rotating in and out of emergency rooms, crisis hospitalization, incarceration, homelessness, and back again. Its no wonder some of the strongest supporters of mental-health reform are police, district attorneys, corrections officials, and emergency-room physicians.

These problems afflict roughly 10 million Americans, or just over 4% of the population. Mainly diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar (manic-depressive illness), or major depression, such individuals are chronically or periodically unable to care for themselves or are suicidal. At times, they may be dangerous to the public. Relative to other psychiatric patients, those with severe mental illness are far more likely to need medication, intensive supervision, and even involuntary treatment at some point in their lives. But they arent getting the help they need, and the governments good intentions are often the very thing preventing their getting appropriate treatment.

To understand a key source of the problem, we should compare severe mental illness to "mental health." The Centers for Disease Control describes mental health as a composite of "emotional well-being," "psychological well-being," and "social well-being." According to government statistics, only about 17% of adults are considered to be in a state of optimal mental health — the rest, apparently, need some kind of professional assistance to achieve optimal "wellness."

Sandwiched between mental health and severe mental illness is a clinical category called mental illness. One recent national survey estimates that nearly 18% of those individuals older than 18, or about 43.7 million people annually, are mentally ill — meaning they fulfill diagnostic criteria for any condition listed in psychiatrys official diagnostic handbook, ranging from attention deficit disorder to panic attacks to anorexia. The severity and chronicity of these conditions varies dramatically, with most conditions resolving on their own, while others are best served with time-limited psychiatric care; some may require hospitalization and long-term medication and therapy.


[I'm guessing the number and size of the problem is worse today, especially in view of the lockdowns. Studies suggest mental illness cases and suicides have gone up markedly over the last year.]

The distinction between mental health, mental illness, and severe mental illness is crucial, because it leads us to different clinical and policy prescriptions. The vague boundaries of "mental health" enabled a variety of advocates whose true agenda is grievance and social reform to claim that their concerns fell under its rubric, as historian of psychiatry Gerald Grob has observed. As a result, he writes, "persons with serious and persistent mental illnesses...[are] forced to compete, often unsuccessfully, with other groups that now [define] their needs in terms of mental health."

The problem we have today is that the system is geared more toward mental health than severe mental illness. In fact, the federal governments lead agency on mental health, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, has explicitly stated this as its goal. Rather than focusing on reducing homelessness, hospitalization, or incarceration among people with serious mental illness, it concentrates federal and state efforts on delivering amorphous "behavioral health" to everyone else.

This is profoundly misguided. But it may not be surprising after a half-century of inept leadership, Medicaids financial incentives gone awry, and clashing ideas about the nature of the forces (psychological, biological, and social) that lead to psychopathology — and that, in turn, point toward the best possible therapeutic strategies. Ours is a problem-ridden system that could be markedly improved with strong political leadership.

We need a mental-illness system in which care for the sickest of the sick is a priority. If the federal government intends to take mental illness seriously, Congress and the next administration must be keenly responsive to the most vulnerable patients.


It isn't just a gov't problem, although that is probably not insignificant. We've gotta change society's perspective on mental illness to remove the stigma attached to it. I would say that helping mentally ill people might reduce gun violence more than any gun control legislation.

I've heard this before on "society's perspective. I'm not upset with you by any means so please don't take it that way. I'm furious. I work with a lot of mentally ill people.

We don't need to work on "removing the stigma". When someone says, "remove the stigma", I hear there will be no funding get used to dealing with it on your own. Consider that in many middle schools across the US, if you aren't cutting, suicidal, been admitted to a psych ward or have a diagnosis then you aren't cool. That's how that babbling BS filters down to kids.

There's no money in mental illness. That's why. Bed availability has decreased significantly. You can have someone that is experiencing a psychotic break but if they don't answer a very strict to the letter set of questions indicating they are actively homicidal/suicidal then they aren't getting in.

But, let's say they actually do get in. They are medicated and given prescriptions and released. Treat and release. The facilities are limited to short term stays that are geared towards stabilization. Then what? Many times these people are over 18 and they can come and go as they please. They don't like or can't afford the medication. You have now entered into "rights" territory.

There are none or relatively few long term facilities. That system was privatized through out most of the US. Then after having achieved that there was the realization that it cost money.

So, yeah. I'm a little pissed off when someone says "remove the stigma".

Right now today there is the pervasive idea that if you are identified as having some kind of mental illness you could be denied a job, or a promotion if you already have a job, or maybe lose your job. You could become the object of ridicule and scorn, even if your condition is benign. Maybe the odds of being assaulted could be higher, even by the police if they are told you have a mental illness.

All I'm saying is that there IS a stigma associated with mental illness that causes many people who need treatment in some form to avoid asking for help, and family and friends will not turn you in so to speak. People will call 911 if you are physically ill, but not so much if you have a mental illness.

We've gotta do more to help those afflicted as best we can. I think that need is best started by changing the way we perceive mental illness. Because so many people will refuse treatment in the first place, due to the stigma attached to it. And if a person will not accept the fact that they have a problem then no treatment will work.
 
Mental Illness and Gun Control Note: the essay below was published in 2016,


The topic doesn't need an essay to understand, Task:

The need for gun control arises from a population unable to handle guns responsibly. The primary driving factors in gun crime are:
  1. Poverty
  2. Hopelessness
  3. Victimhood.
  4. Living conditions.
Poverty occurs in greatest numbers around democrat-run inner cities.
Hopelessness leads to gun violence out of desperation.
Victimhood comes from being told 24/7 by democrats that you are a victim.
Poor living conditions and stress lead to mental illness, which fosters gun violence.

Since most of this ties back to democrat control, it only stands to reason that democrats are not crazy about talking about what DRIVES gun violence! Instead, they talk of controlling it, which of course means trying to take guns from people and of course, the first and most affected by that are NOT your inner city democrats committing the actual crimes!
 
The U.S, government along with the Gun industry should include a mental health assessment., before anyone can purchase a weapon.
 
The need for gun control arises from a population unable to handle guns responsibly. The primary driving factors in gun crime are:
  1. Poverty
  2. Hopelessness
  3. Victimhood.
  4. Living conditions.

I think Mental Illness deserves it's own category when it comes to gun crime. Some shooters are mentally ill even though they do not fit into any of the above categories. MI can lead to those other factors or result from any of them, or it can exist without any of them either. Sociopaths and psychopaths and people with psychiatric disorders of one nature or another need to be treated regardless of those other circumstances. I'm not even sure we even have an accurate definition of what MI is.

Society need to recognize the problem and it's impact on everyone, and not just to reduce gun crimes. The real problem isn't the gun, it's the shooter.
 
Last edited:
The need for gun control arises from a population unable to handle guns responsibly. The primary driving factors in gun crime are:
  1. Poverty
  2. Hopelessness
  3. Victimhood.
  4. Living conditions.

I think Mental Illness deserves it's own category when it comes to gun crime. Some hooters are mentally ill even though they do not fit into any of the above categories. MI can lead to those other factors or result from any of them, or it can exist without any of them either. Sociopaths and psychopaths and people with psychiatric disorders of one nature or another need to be treated regardless of those other circumstances. I'm not even sure we even have an accurate definition of what MI is.

Society need to recognize the problem and it's impact on everyone, and not just to reduce gun crimes. The real problem isn't the gun, it's the shooter.



Yes, of course, but MI is so nebulous a term and we are very ineffective in defining much less treating it. Mental illness is at both ends of the crime problem, and can be both acute or institutional/chronic.

Some people can show every outward symptom of a MI yet never commit a gun crime while others can lead wholesome, uneventful lives only to reveal their illness THROUGH gun crime!

So you can't divorce a person of their rights WHOLLY ON THE BASIS OF some arbitrary clinical evaluation, much less accuse every gun criminal of being mental. Some people kill for very sane and rational reasons.

All we can do is everything we used to do but stopped doing due to leftist PC:
  • Train people to use and respect (and not fear) firearms responsibly.
  • Tackle the problems driving crime: poverty and hopelessness.
  • Prosecute those who commit gun crime, without trying to guess their emotions while doing so.
 
Note: the essay below was published in 2016, but it is obviously still relevant today. It's pretty long, but I think worth your time. I tried to include some salient points here:


The recent spate of high-profile mass shootings has inspired yet another "national conversation" about mental illness, with everyone agreeing that the country has a problem. Unfortunately, isolated instances of violence are how the subject typically ends up in the news cycle. But the more mundane social repercussions of mental illness, while perhaps not as headline-worthy, are pervasive and acutely felt nonetheless.

On any given day, one in five people in jail or prison has a severe mental illness. This means that people with serious mental illness are ten times more likely to inhabit a jail cell than a hospital bed. Besides contributing to jail and prison over-crowding, mentally ill people are especially vulnerable to victimization by fellow prisoners, spend more time in solitary confinement, and become suicidal behind bars at higher rates than non-mentally ill inmates. They also cost the correctional system considerably more than otherwise healthy prisoners.

The challenge facing prisons is just one consequence of decades of de-institutionalization policies. From a nationwide peak of around 560,000 psychiatric beds in 1955, the census has been whittled down to about 35,000 today — about half of what experts estimate is actually needed. In the absence of such beds, patients will continue to be warehoused behind bars, lie on emergency-room gurneys for days, and languish in nursing homes. One-third of the nations homeless will still be comprised of the untreated mentally ill, who are at far greater risk of being preyed upon than of harming someone else.

The lesson of downsizing state psychiatric facilities — no less powerful for being familiar — is that good intentions are not enough. Too many sick people are now caught in a pernicious cycle, rotating in and out of emergency rooms, crisis hospitalization, incarceration, homelessness, and back again. Its no wonder some of the strongest supporters of mental-health reform are police, district attorneys, corrections officials, and emergency-room physicians.

These problems afflict roughly 10 million Americans, or just over 4% of the population. Mainly diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar (manic-depressive illness), or major depression, such individuals are chronically or periodically unable to care for themselves or are suicidal. At times, they may be dangerous to the public. Relative to other psychiatric patients, those with severe mental illness are far more likely to need medication, intensive supervision, and even involuntary treatment at some point in their lives. But they arent getting the help they need, and the governments good intentions are often the very thing preventing their getting appropriate treatment.

To understand a key source of the problem, we should compare severe mental illness to "mental health." The Centers for Disease Control describes mental health as a composite of "emotional well-being," "psychological well-being," and "social well-being." According to government statistics, only about 17% of adults are considered to be in a state of optimal mental health — the rest, apparently, need some kind of professional assistance to achieve optimal "wellness."

Sandwiched between mental health and severe mental illness is a clinical category called mental illness. One recent national survey estimates that nearly 18% of those individuals older than 18, or about 43.7 million people annually, are mentally ill — meaning they fulfill diagnostic criteria for any condition listed in psychiatrys official diagnostic handbook, ranging from attention deficit disorder to panic attacks to anorexia. The severity and chronicity of these conditions varies dramatically, with most conditions resolving on their own, while others are best served with time-limited psychiatric care; some may require hospitalization and long-term medication and therapy.


[I'm guessing the number and size of the problem is worse today, especially in view of the lockdowns. Studies suggest mental illness cases and suicides have gone up markedly over the last year.]

The distinction between mental health, mental illness, and severe mental illness is crucial, because it leads us to different clinical and policy prescriptions. The vague boundaries of "mental health" enabled a variety of advocates whose true agenda is grievance and social reform to claim that their concerns fell under its rubric, as historian of psychiatry Gerald Grob has observed. As a result, he writes, "persons with serious and persistent mental illnesses...[are] forced to compete, often unsuccessfully, with other groups that now [define] their needs in terms of mental health."

The problem we have today is that the system is geared more toward mental health than severe mental illness. In fact, the federal governments lead agency on mental health, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, has explicitly stated this as its goal. Rather than focusing on reducing homelessness, hospitalization, or incarceration among people with serious mental illness, it concentrates federal and state efforts on delivering amorphous "behavioral health" to everyone else.

This is profoundly misguided. But it may not be surprising after a half-century of inept leadership, Medicaids financial incentives gone awry, and clashing ideas about the nature of the forces (psychological, biological, and social) that lead to psychopathology — and that, in turn, point toward the best possible therapeutic strategies. Ours is a problem-ridden system that could be markedly improved with strong political leadership.

We need a mental-illness system in which care for the sickest of the sick is a priority. If the federal government intends to take mental illness seriously, Congress and the next administration must be keenly responsive to the most vulnerable patients.


It isn't just a gov't problem, although that is probably not insignificant. We've gotta change society's perspective on mental illness to remove the stigma attached to it. I would say that helping mentally ill people might reduce gun violence more than any gun control legislation.

I've heard this before on "society's perspective. I'm not upset with you by any means so please don't take it that way. I'm furious. I work with a lot of mentally ill people.

We don't need to work on "removing the stigma". When someone says, "remove the stigma", I hear there will be no funding get used to dealing with it on your own. Consider that in many middle schools across the US, if you aren't cutting, suicidal, been admitted to a psych ward or have a diagnosis then you aren't cool. That's how that babbling BS filters down to kids.

There's no money in mental illness. That's why. Bed availability has decreased significantly. You can have someone that is experiencing a psychotic break but if they don't answer a very strict to the letter set of questions indicating they are actively homicidal/suicidal then they aren't getting in.

But, let's say they actually do get in. They are medicated and given prescriptions and released. Treat and release. The facilities are limited to short term stays that are geared towards stabilization. Then what? Many times these people are over 18 and they can come and go as they please. They don't like or can't afford the medication. You have now entered into "rights" territory.

There are none or relatively few long term facilities. That system was privatized through out most of the US. Then after having achieved that there was the realization that it cost money.

So, yeah. I'm a little pissed off when someone says "remove the stigma".

Right now today there is the pervasive idea that if you are identified as having some kind of mental illness you could be denied a job, or a promotion if you already have a job, or maybe lose your job. You could become the object of ridicule and scorn, even if your condition is benign. Maybe the odds of being assaulted could be higher, even by the police if they are told you have a mental illness.

All I'm saying is that there IS a stigma associated with mental illness that causes many people who need treatment in some form to avoid asking for help, and family and friends will not turn you in so to speak. People will call 911 if you are physically ill, but not so much if you have a mental illness.

We've gotta do more to help those afflicted as best we can. I think that need is best started by changing the way we perceive mental illness. Because so many people will refuse treatment in the first place, due to the stigma attached to it. And if a person will not accept the fact that they have a problem then no treatment will work.

You know where the elite send their mentally ill people? Europe. You know who doesn't get to *insert frowny face* worry about stigma? Any lower classes because help does not exist. If the cops know that the person that they are dealing with is mentally ill or they are able to figure out as the situation is unfolding that the individual is mentally ill then they will do what they can to deescalate the situation. However, de-escalation techniques only work when you are dealing with someone that has enough of a rational mind to work with.

It isn't "society' that needs to get it. I have seen this over and over again. Society means that I am going to receive about 200 memes of how to battle the stigma. Wrong group of people. We all get it. Nothing makes me want to throat punch a millennial more then a damn meme, PSA or lecture pushed down from the elite squad.

Funding. Focus on the funding. We don't need to reinvent the wheel.

Social workers do what they can to help mentally ill people obtain employment and housing and medical treatment. If that individual is not on SSI already then you may as well just beat your head against the damn wall. You will get further faster.

If the people that are doing the hiring, don't want to deal with it then that is your target group.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top