Should the mentally ill be committed by force?

Mr Manifesto said:
Do you stop someone from jumping off a bridge, if you have the chance?
Click to expand...

Of course. But merely stopping them doesn't include keeping them in an institution against their will. What's the rationale for that (institutionalized against their will)?
 
Tony said:
Of course. But merely stopping them doesn't include keeping them in an institution against their will. What's the rationale for that (institutionalized against their will)?
Click to expand...

Don't think of the institution as a prison, where nothing productive will happen, but more of a compulsary hospital, where the goal is either to heal or to teach the patient how to cope.
 
jay gw said:
I don't think any of you have lived with a mentally ill person. It's pretty apparent that you have little clue about how much harm is done to communities by the mentally ill.


Ahh, yes, now you're reading minds. You know what, you're not doing a very good job, either. While I presently haven't any such person in the house, in the past I've rented a room to a bipolar, known several other bipolars, at least one or two people with MPD, one of whom I'd say the 'm' was barely there, and so on.


Ignorance is bliss I suppose.


I suppose that thinking that you (singular, referring to jgw) the one true way is also bliss.


No one has brought up the fact that 70 percent of crimes are committed by 10 percent of criminals.
Click to expand...

Now, are you arguing that such people are mentally ill, or not? How do you separate intent from illness?
 
I think this depends on the state of the 'mental illness'. Is this person a danger to his/herself or to others? Is this person capable of taking care of his/herself? Does this person have resources to help deal with his/her problems? I think if a person is unable to care for his/herself and is a danger either to self or to others, then yes, that person probably should be committed. But if that person is not a danger to self or others and is capable of caring for self then, no, should not be committed. It is a matter of degrees and what is defined as mental illness. I don't think everyone who is branded with a mental disorder should be placed into an institution because that may not be necessary or required.
 
What's the rationale for that (institutionalized against their will)?
Click to expand...

It would be treatment that otherwise would never happen.

Have you ever heard of seriously mentally ill people checking themselves into an institution? Unlikely.

About 90 percent of people in mental facilities were put there because of the commission of crimes. They don't check themselves in. Homeless people wander around muttering to themselves all day. Nobody cares about them until they rape somebody or mug them.

Why does a community have to wait until someone murders their family, neighbors, coworkers and maybe the dog too before being allowed to investigate whether there's a problem?
 
jay gw said:
It would be treatment that otherwise would never happen.

Have you ever heard of seriously mentally ill people checking themselves into an institution? Unlikely.

About 90 percent of people in mental facilities were put there because of the commission of crimes. They don't check themselves in. Homeless people wander around muttering to themselves all day. Nobody cares about them until they rape somebody or mug them.

Why does a community have to wait until someone murders their family, neighbors, coworkers and maybe the dog too before being allowed to investigate whether there's a problem?
Click to expand...


Ok, you guys convinced me.
 
jay gw said:
Why does a community have to wait until someone murders their family, neighbors, coworkers and maybe the dog too before being allowed to investigate whether there's a problem?
Click to expand...
So what do we do ? Incarcerate people indefinitely for crimes they may potentially commit ? Many people have untreatable conditions. Diagnosis is an inexact science, what proportion of mistakes will be acceptable 1% ? 10% ? 99% ?
 
jay gw said:

Why does a community have to wait until someone murders their family, neighbors, coworkers and maybe the dog too before being allowed to investigate whether there's a problem?
Click to expand...

Because in a free society, people have rights. In America specifically, we have a Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The probable cause standard requires that the government have information that a specific crime has been committed or is about to be committed. The mere presence of a mental illness doesn't satisfy this burden. Civil commitment is just an end-run around our Constitutional rights.

Any argument that someone who is merely a danger to themelves should be locked up is bogus. Since I own myself, I should be able to cause myself harm or even kill myself at any time, for any reason. It isn't the business of the authorities.
 
jay gw said:
I don't think any of you have lived with a mentally ill person.
Click to expand...

For my own mental health, I will refrain from making a wise-crack about my wife here... :D

jay gw said:
It's pretty apparent that you have little clue about how much harm is done to communities by the mentally ill. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.
Click to expand...

It's equally clear that you are failing to take into consideration the absence of harm caused by the majority of mentally ill persons.

I have had relatives with Alzheimer's related dementia, we have several clients in our office who are bipolar, a quite a few that are OCD, some I would swear are paranoiacs, and a lot, I'm sure, that have problems I don't even suspect.

The only "crime" done by any of these people is the one bipolar woman who has been arrested a few times for self-medicating. With crack.

Are you next going to advocate that persons having sex be locked up? "Crimes of passion" being a leading motivation for murder? Businesspersons incarcerated because the majority of environmental and monetary crimes are commited by such people? Their crimes are far more destructive than any shooting spree, after all.
 
Should the mentally ill be committed by force?

No, that's cruel and unfair, to physically coerce the mentally ill into the asylum.

They should be tricked into going there willingly.
 
They only forceably commit mental people WHEN THEY ARE A DANGER to themsleves or others.

You need a court order to comiit someone. You cant just do it for the hell of it. If I have obbsessive compulsive order I am mentally ill. But I cant be commited just for flipping a light switch 18x before I leave a room.

Mind you comittment it to treat the illness, not to lock the person up like they are a criminal.

You want to get tricky. ASk if its OK to forceably committ drug addicts?? Its debateable that they are mentally ill, BUT they are a danger to themselves.
 
jay gw said:
If the resources are available, should people diagnosed with or suspected of having mental illness be forcibly committed by family members? What about the state?

If not, why not? If yes, under what circumstances and for what purpose?

By what principles are you deciding?
Click to expand...

People with mental illness(es) are forcibly committed all the time provided that it can be clearly shown that they are a danger to others and/or themselves.

On the other hand, if there illness is not severe, then it is assumed that they are capable of making their own decisions about their own welfare and cannot be forcibly committed.

As for the standards that are followed, here are a few:

Attempted suicide,
Making deadly threats,
Attempting to carry out deadly actions,
Doing nonsensical things over an extended time,
Not being self-aware,
and so on.
 
The Fool said:
Have you ever heard of someone being locked up for wanting something. I want to shag Britney but I'm unlikely to be charged.
Click to expand...

My wife and I personally took a young man to a hospital who said he had been thinking about driving head-on into a random car on the way to our A.A. meeting, and who also stated he wanted to get a machine gun and shoot everyone in the room. He was locked up by the hospital.
 
In most states, by verbalizing intent to harm self or others in a manner as to suggest that there is a reasonable threat of safety and a plan to carry out that threat will get you 48 hours of involuntary comittment for evaluation. A Dr. must perform a cursory physical and psych evaluation to rule out organic causes, i.e. brain tumor, stroke, diabetic emergency, etc. of anyone that is thought to be 'crazy'. In absence of medical cause or intoxication, altered mental status will also get you 48 hours of involuntary comission for a psych evaluation.

After the 48 hours they are can be released for outpatient treatment, admitted for inpatient treatment consensually or by court order or remanded to law enforcement for criminal prosecution.

Some of those most reasonable and rational people I have met were schizophrenics in full blown crisis.



Boo
 
Doing nonsensical things over an extended time,
Not being self-aware,
Click to expand...

As someone working in academic philosophy I take particular offense at your attempt to classify me as mentally deranged. Or, at least, at your claim that I should be locked up somewhere. I mean, unless they have a really good library and internet access.
 
Have you ever heard the term, "enabling"? It's used when people, by their passivity, allow destructive behaviors to start and continue.
 
jay gw said:
Have you ever heard the term, "enabling"? It's used when people, by their passivity, allow destructive behaviors to start and continue.
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard the term, "liberty"? It's used when people, by their failure to commit a crime, are allowed to live without being incarcerated or harrased.
 
It's used when people, by their failure to commit a crime, are allowed to live without being incarcerated or harrased.
Click to expand...

You've obviously never had a mental illness. Luckily, I don't know from my own experience, but it doesn't take much insight to see someone with schizophrenia wandering the streets is not "liberated".

How do you know that mentally ill people prefer (your version of) liberty over temporary support from the state and the ability to handle life's problems?

I know where my bet is going.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom