Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We have an interesting problem in MN right now. After sex offenders serve their prison term they are sent to a State mental health facility to have treatment. Because most of these are Level III offenders, meaning that they are highly likely to reoffend, it is seldom that any of them is able to complete the requirements of treatment. So they remain indefinitely in a security hospital.
Recently, upon a group lawsuit from the patients, a State judge has ruled that their Civil Rights are being violated and has ordered the State to alter the treatment program under threat of closing the program down. There isn't a politician in the state that wants to touch this with a ten-foot pole and it's been dragging on.
A lot of lip-service and scrambling has been done but ultimately, from my perspective, the professionals who run the program are the best judges of what works, what doesn't and how to evaluate when a patient is ready to return to the community. And given the natural intractability of the problem it is likely that most who are incarcerated rightly should stay where they are under our current guidelines. Yet the decision will be made politically.
Already the state has been under pressure from the left to diminish the use of restraints and to allow unsupervised visits outside of the hospital. Because of this there have been murders, attempted murders, severe injuries to other patients and staff. Rather defeats the purpose of protecting patients and others from violence to arbitrarily give them days where their violent tendencies are overlooked, I think.
I watch with interest to see how this knotty problem is resolved.
How horrible is this? I'm sure this gonna be a very frightened moment when its happened. How sad for the patient, she was able to admit but she had also a very bad taste. I am a newbie here. I enjoy reading book about history of life and the country but when I read your post, I suddenly shocked most of it.
The OP's detractors in this thread are uninformed.
1. "Mental illness" doesn't exist as a bona fide disease but as an arbitrary classification, e.g. any quack can claim you have a disorder and use it to lock you up at whim, even without committing an actual violent act. It's a dangerous and undeserved power.
2. Locking people away without probable cause or formal charge is ILLEGAL, and the only reason it's tolerated with the so-called mentally ill population is because of social bigotry and lack of adequate legal challenges.
3. Locking people away in closed institutions has been proven in case studies to WORSEN mental dispositions. Why? Because in labeling people mentally ill, advocates ignore the persons underlying humanity and become oblivious to the fact that everyone naturally desires to be free, and anything other than freedom causes inner turmoil.
4. Violent behavior belongs under the domain of law enforcement, not medicine. The only purpose that medicalizing behavior serves is to undermine a persons right to due process and freedom from indefinite imprisonment or imprisonment without having committed an actual crime (yours truly was locked away for 11 days for getting in a loud argument and falsely accused of throwing a chair).
5. Employees & ex-employees of mental hospitals have absolutely no credibility in the debate over whether these disgusting and subversive JAILS are beneficial or should even exist, as they're the ones who've caused the rampant documented cases of abuse that have lead to the ridiculously poor longterm outcomes. It is a myth that anyone truly "recovers" because of institutionalization, as statistics from sources like Robert Whitaker's Anatomy of an Epidemic prove that they've actually worsened due to both policy and the toxic effects of neuroleptic ("antipsychotic") drugs. These poor outcomes, however, are usually blamed on patients supposed 'disorders' instead of the paternalistic lunacy that makes up mental health policy.
The OP's detractors in this thread are uninformed.
1. "Mental illness" doesn't exist as a bona fide disease but as an arbitrary classification, e.g. any quack can claim you have a disorder and use it to lock you up at whim, even without committing an actual violent act. It's a dangerous and undeserved power.
2. Locking people away without probable cause or formal charge is ILLEGAL, and the only reason it's tolerated with the so-called mentally ill population is because of social bigotry and lack of adequate legal challenges.
3. Locking people away in closed institutions has been proven in case studies to WORSEN mental dispositions. Why? Because in labeling people mentally ill, advocates ignore the persons underlying humanity and become oblivious to the fact that everyone naturally desires to be free, and anything other than freedom causes inner turmoil.
4. Violent behavior belongs under the domain of law enforcement, not medicine. The only purpose that medicalizing behavior serves is to undermine a persons right to due process and freedom from indefinite imprisonment or imprisonment without having committed an actual crime (yours truly was locked away for 11 days for getting in a loud argument and falsely accused of throwing a chair).
5. Employees & ex-employees of mental hospitals have absolutely no credibility in the debate over whether these disgusting and subversive JAILS are beneficial or should even exist, as they're the ones who've caused the rampant documented cases of abuse that have lead to the ridiculously poor longterm outcomes. It is a myth that anyone truly "recovers" because of institutionalization, as statistics from sources like Robert Whitaker's Anatomy of an Epidemic prove that they've actually worsened due to both policy and the toxic effects of neuroleptic ("antipsychotic") drugs. These poor outcomes, however, are usually blamed on patients supposed 'disorders' instead of the paternalistic lunacy that makes up mental health policy.
So many mentally ill people end up in prison that it's the US's number one mental health provider.
A complete and utter mess. Paternalistic system, my ass. It's treat em and street em.
We have an interesting problem in MN right now. After sex offenders serve their prison term they are sent to a State mental health facility to have treatment. Because most of these are Level III offenders, meaning that they are highly likely to reoffend, it is seldom that any of them is able to complete the requirements of treatment. So they remain indefinitely in a security hospital.
Recently, upon a group lawsuit from the patients, a State judge has ruled that their Civil Rights are being violated and has ordered the State to alter the treatment program under threat of closing the program down. There isn't a politician in the state that wants to touch this with a ten-foot pole and it's been dragging on.
A lot of lip-service and scrambling has been done but ultimately, from my perspective, the professionals who run the program are the best judges of what works, what doesn't and how to evaluate when a patient is ready to return to the community. And given the natural intractability of the problem it is likely that most who are incarcerated rightly should stay where they are under our current guidelines. Yet the decision will be made politically.
Already the state has been under pressure from the left to diminish the use of restraints and to allow unsupervised visits outside of the hospital. Because of this there have been murders, attempted murders, severe injuries to other patients and staff. Rather defeats the purpose of protecting patients and others from violence to arbitrarily give them days where their violent tendencies are overlooked, I think.
I watch with interest to see how this knotty problem is resolved.
Very interesting. I hope you will keep us updated!
When I briefly looked up the story, it seems like they are getting NO treatment at all due to budget cuts.
Anyone who works inpatient or in an ER could tell you how restraints are needed for both the safety of staff and patient.
Much like the politicians interference with abortions, they need to let the doctors' do their jobs and not fear monger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pookie Jenkins
The OP's detractors in this thread are uninformed.
1. "Mental illness" doesn't exist as a bona fide disease but as an arbitrary classification, e.g. any quack can claim you have a disorder and use it to lock you up at whim, even without committing an actual violent act. It's a dangerous and undeserved power.
2. Locking people away without probable cause or formal charge is ILLEGAL, and the only reason it's tolerated with the so-called mentally ill population is because of social bigotry and lack of adequate legal challenges.
3. Locking people away in closed institutions has been proven in case studies to WORSEN mental dispositions. Why? Because in labeling people mentally ill, advocates ignore the persons underlying humanity and become oblivious to the fact that everyone naturally desires to be free, and anything other than freedom causes inner turmoil.
4. Violent behavior belongs under the domain of law enforcement, not medicine. The only purpose that medicalizing behavior serves is to undermine a persons right to due process and freedom from indefinite imprisonment or imprisonment without having committed an actual crime (yours truly was locked away for 11 days for getting in a loud argument and falsely accused of throwing a chair).
5. Employees & ex-employees of mental hospitals have absolutely no credibility in the debate over whether these disgusting and subversive JAILS are beneficial or should even exist, as they're the ones who've caused the rampant documented cases of abuse that have lead to the ridiculously poor longterm outcomes. It is a myth that anyone truly "recovers" because of institutionalization, as statistics from sources like Robert Whitaker's Anatomy of an Epidemic prove that they've actually worsened due to both policy and the toxic effects of neuroleptic ("antipsychotic") drugs. These poor outcomes, however, are usually blamed on patients supposed 'disorders' instead of the paternalistic lunacy that makes up mental health policy.
1. False. Only specialized and licensed clinicians can make that call. On top of that, you usually get a third party evaluation mandated by insurance.
Many insurance companies have no problem sending suicidal people home to kill themselves. Happens more than you know.
2. False. The "probable cause" is imminent risk to self or others. It is "tolerated" because many people would be dead without it. Some people *need* to be in a locked ward for their health. Comparing it to prison is missing the point of locked mental health units. It is not a punisment.
Its just like any other illness. Much like people "tolerate" open heart surgery, or to put in alarmist language, "ripping your chest open and cutting into one of your 2 most vital organs while you are unconscious."
3. Where is your data please? I will admit that I've seen clinicians act cold and without humanity and treat patients like a number, but I've received indignant care from psychiatrists, opthomologists, general practitioners, etc. People who work in health care are just "people." Some are good at empathy and humanism and some are not. You always have the right to a new doc. Even when in a locked hospital.
4. I'm sorry this happened to you. I can't comment on it since I don't know the circumstances.
5. Black and white thinking is the most dangerous type of thinking. You cannot pain *all* psych hospital employees black until you have met them all. Again, like any healing profession, some are very good at helping people, some are not, and most fall in the middle.
1. False. Only specialized and licensed clinicians can make that call. On top of that, you usually get a third party evaluation mandated by insurance.
I don't think I argued otherwise. The point I was making wasn't about professional licensing, but about that fact that the 'diagnosing' of 'mental illness' is 100% subjective and arbitrary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Utopian Slums
Many insurance companies have no problem sending suicidal people home to kill themselves. Happens more than you know.
That's because it's obvious to them, as it should be to clinicians, that suicide isn't disease - it's behavior.
You are aware that suicide is a socially acceptable response to disgrace in some parts of the world, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Utopian Slums
2. False. The "probable cause" is imminent risk to self or others. It is "tolerated" because many people would be dead without it. Some people *need* to be in a locked ward for their health. Comparing it to prison is missing the point of locked mental health units. It is not a punisment.
1. 'Danger to ones self or others' is decided through prejudice, i.e. a person already deemed to be 'mentally ill' has a much lower threshold for being locked away for the same behavior as a non-mentally ill person. This is because everything a 'mentally ill' person does is interpreted through the prism of their supposed disorder rather than through their own volition. Yours truly was once youth homeless and coerced into a mental health shelter, then locked away for 11 days over a non-violent argument. Why? Assumed 'mental illness' + natural emotional outburst = danger to ones self or others. That's not probable cause, that's bigotry.
2. Many more people are dead because of institutionalization. You are aware of the history of this barbaric practice, right? Better check out Psychiatry: An Industry of Death on Youtube if not.
3. Some people need to be in a locked ward? Not indefinitely and not if they haven't committed a crime. Anything else would be giving more rights to criminals than to the 'mentally ill'. I'm sure that's OK with you though, right?
4. Taking away someones freedom IS punishment, any way you slice it. The mental death system is definitely parallel to the criminal justice system, i.e. outpatient is just like parole/probation in that an authoritarian is there to monitor, control and report you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Utopian Slums
Its just like any other illness. Much like people "tolerate" open heart surgery, or to put in alarmist language, "ripping your chest open and cutting into one of your 2 most vital organs while you are unconscious."
-Heart diseases are defined by pathophysiology, 'mental illness' is defined by unwanted behavior
-Cardiology admissions provide actual healthcare, psychiatric admissions are a form of imprisonment
-Cardiologic care is voluntary, psychiatric "care" is (frequently) coerced and forced
-Heart surgery is patient-solicited and voluntary, mental 'treatment' is often unsolicited and involuntary
-Heart surgery is explicitly done to prolong life, 'mental health' is explicitly done to control behavior
I will admit that I've seen clinicians act cold and without humanity and treat patients like a number, but I've received indignant care from psychiatrists, opthomologists, general practitioners, etc. People who work in health care are just "people." Some are good at empathy and humanism and some are not. You always have the right to a new doc. Even when in a locked hospital.
From my experience and research, the entire system is corrupt, not just individual practitioners. All the "docs" I dealt with (at least 5 in the hospital and 1 in outpatient) were the same - lying, manipulative quacks trying to control me and simultaneously keep me as ignorant as possible (i.e. not telling me I'd be diagnosed, prescribing meds without explaining what they were for, refusing to answer questions directly etc.). They all seemed to take it personal when I rejected their power, and tried to retaliate by using force and blackmail. I wasn't just treated like a number but a deranged animal needing to be tranquilized. Again, this was on a systemic level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Utopian Slums
5. Black and white thinking is the most dangerous type of thinking. You cannot pain *all* psych hospital employees black until you have met them all. Again, like any healing profession, some are very good at helping people, some are not, and most fall in the middle.
Complicity in widespread, industry-wide, prolonged cases of abuse is pretty damning, don't you think? This is like the Catholic church trying to deny that they have a pedophile problem. I wasn't trying to blame every individual hospital employee, but I do think that in general they have no credibility in discussions about anyone "needing" to be locked up because 1) it isn't their rights being taken away (people are always OK with someone else's rights being deprived, as long as it's not theirs - see abortion, gun control, stop & frisk etc.) and 2) many have contributed to patients worsened psychological states on a mass, institutional level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Utopian Slums
And one person's anecdotal book is not "data."
Whitaker's book is filled with hard facts and statistics, not anecdotes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
