The Tipping Point for Mental Illness

Page 1 of 4 [ 57 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,952
Location:

23 Dec 2012, 5:29 pm

An article in today's Orange County Register had two things to say that are relevant to many current discussions:

Quote:

"If my son had autism I could advocate for him and get services. If my mother had Alzheimer's I could advocate and get services for her. I had to wait for him to deteriorate to the point that I could legally take his rights away in conservatorship and that occurred only after the charges."

Quote:

"People can talk about gun control, and I think that's an important issue as well. But with many of these mass shootings, what they have in common is a psychotic young man who was not in treatment and needed better help,"

The article features a mother who must care for her adult son, who has schizophrenia, because there are no institutions to place her son in. Keep in mind that this article is about an actual person - one who loves her son in spite of his impairment, and who is also a medical professional.

Quote:

Palafox, 58, felt powerless as she watched her son disintegrate into the distorted reality of schizophrenia. When he became completely incapacitated, she called 911.

Under state law, he could only be held in a psychiatric ward against his will for 72 hours and then he would come home again.

"They don't have institutions anymore, so we're the institution," Palafox said. "The family's home has become the institution. If it's not there, it's usually the jail."

...

Palafox said her son never had delusions of hurting others, but he would feel so tormented she feared for his safety. He would smash mirrors and punch holes in the wall. When she called the police or social workers, she was told she could have him arrested but not hospitalized because he would not give consent.

A person who can not make judgments for himself can not be treated if he does not give consent, but he can not give consent for treatment because he can not make judgments for himself, so he is remanded to the custody of his family, who is often ill-prepared to handle supervision of schizophrenic patient 24/7, even if one of them is a medical professional.

Sad, huh?

_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.

League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,317
Location: Pacific Northwest

23 Dec 2012, 5:42 pm

We need to bring back institutions.

_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed and ASD lv 1.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses. Possibly OCD. Is very private about herself.

Surfman
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Aug 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,938
Location: Homeward bound

23 Dec 2012, 5:43 pm

Gas station weed or synthetic cannabis, causes psychotic breakdowns, while real weed does the opposite.
The state sanctions its sale to consumers
Many psyche medications can create a psychotic break also, that would normally not exist

Its odd that the authorities have much responsibility in promoting an acid body [via dietary norms] and thus a propensity toward a psychotic state.

And these authorities are the same ones to run to when a psychotic state begins???

tell me who is crazy....

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,952
Location:

23 Dec 2012, 5:43 pm

League_Girl wrote:

We need to bring back institutions.

Agreed.

What we also need to bring back is a greater emphasis on the "Common Good" over the rights of schizophrenic individuals.

AardvarkGoodSwimmer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,665
Location: Houston, Texas

23 Dec 2012, 5:51 pm

And at the same time, we can have (good, respectful, communicative) services more readily available.

For example, this woman's son may prefer living in a decently run small-group home part of the time and then with his family the other part of the time. And this arrangement may work for the other family members, too.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,952
Location:

23 Dec 2012, 6:02 pm

AardvarkGoodSwimmer wrote:

Paid for by ... ?

Who_Am_I
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Aug 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,632
Location: Australia

23 Dec 2012, 6:07 pm

Fnord wrote:

AardvarkGoodSwimmer wrote:

Paid for by ... ?

The same people who were going to pay for the institutions that you agreed were a good idea not half an hour ago?

_________________
Music Theory 101: Cadences.
Authentic cadence: V-I
Plagal cadence: IV-I
Deceptive cadence: V- ANYTHING BUT I ! !! !
Beethoven cadence: V-I-V-I-V-V-V-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I
-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I! I! I! I I I

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,952
Location:

23 Dec 2012, 6:14 pm

Who_Am_I wrote:

Fnord wrote:

AardvarkGoodSwimmer wrote:

And at the same time, we can have (good, respectful, communicative) services more readily available. For example, this woman's son may prefer living in a decently run small-group home part of the time and then with his family the other part of the time. And this arrangement may work for the other family members, too.

Paid for by ... ?

The same people who were going to pay for the institutions that you agreed were a good idea not half an hour ago?

Taxpayers.

But so what?

Better to spend billions protecting Americans from real threats within our own borders, than to spend billions protecting Americans from threats that have not existed for over 20 years outside our borders.

$1,000,000,000 ... I wonder how many doses of Demerol that could buy?

Who_Am_I
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Aug 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,632
Location: Australia

23 Dec 2012, 6:18 pm

Fnord wrote:

Who_Am_I wrote:

Fnord wrote:

AardvarkGoodSwimmer wrote:

And at the same time, we can have (good, respectful, communicative) services more readily available. For example, this woman's son may prefer living in a decently run small-group home part of the time and then with his family the other part of the time. And this arrangement may work for the other family members, too.

Paid for by ... ?

The same people who were going to pay for the institutions that you agreed were a good idea not half an hour ago?

If the taxpayers want protection then I think it's only fair that they should pay for it.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,952
Location:

23 Dec 2012, 6:20 pm

Who_Am_I wrote:

Fnord wrote:

Who_Am_I wrote:

Fnord wrote:

AardvarkGoodSwimmer wrote:

And at the same time, we can have (good, respectful, communicative) services more readily available. For example, this woman's son may prefer living in a decently run small-group home part of the time and then with his family the other part of the time. And this arrangement may work for the other family members, too.

Paid for by ... ?

The same people who were going to pay for the institutions that you agreed were a good idea not half an hour ago?

Taxpayers. But so what? Better to spend billions protecting Americans from real threats within our own borders, than to spend billions protecting Americans from threats that have not existed for over 20 years outside our borders. $1,000,000,000 ... I wonder how many doses of Demerol that could buy?

If the taxpayers want protection then I think it's only fair that they should pay for it.

Agreed. We need better protection from each other than from some Cold-War bogeyman!

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

23 Dec 2012, 6:26 pm

Fnord wrote:

Who_Am_I wrote:

Fnord wrote:

AardvarkGoodSwimmer wrote:

And at the same time, we can have (good, respectful, communicative) services more readily available. For example, this woman's son may prefer living in a decently run small-group home part of the time and then with his family the other part of the time. And this arrangement may work for the other family members, too.

Paid for by ... ?

The same people who were going to pay for the institutions that you agreed were a good idea not half an hour ago?

Taking away the rights of mentally ill people is not exactly protecting americans from real threats...that is assuming mentally ill people are a threat and treating them as such regardless of if they have committed any crimes. There needs to be improvement in the mental health system but I don't think increased long term institutionalization and drugging of the mentally ill is a great solution...that should still remain a last resort and only used when medically necessary not to calm the publics paranoia.

_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,952
Location:

23 Dec 2012, 6:41 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:

Fnord wrote:

Who_Am_I wrote:

Fnord wrote:

AardvarkGoodSwimmer wrote:

And at the same time, we can have (good, respectful, communicative) services more readily available. For example, this woman's son may prefer living in a decently run small-group home part of the time and then with his family the other part of the time. And this arrangement may work for the other family members, too.

Paid for by ... ?

The same people who were going to pay for the institutions that you agreed were a good idea not half an hour ago?

Taxpayers. But so what? Better to spend billions protecting Americans from real threats within our own borders, than to spend billions protecting Americans from threats that have not existed for over 20 years outside our borders. $1,000,000,000 ... I wonder how many doses of Demerol that could buy?

Taking away the rights of mentally ill people is not exactly protecting americans from real threats

If the only way a mentally ill person is able to exercise his or her rights is to buy a gun and shoot up a classroom full of children, then he or she deserves to have those rights taken away.

Sweetleaf wrote:

...that is assuming mentally ill people are a threat and treating them as such regardless of if they have committed any crimes.

Great idea! Yes, lets wait until another 20 children are blown away by a madman before anything is done to stop him.

Sweetleaf wrote:

There needs to be improvement in the mental health system but I don't think increased long term institutionalization and drugging of the mentally ill is a great solution ... that should still remain a last resort and only used when medically necessary not to calm the publics paranoia.

Well, doctor, what do you suggest be done instead?

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

23 Dec 2012, 7:17 pm

Fnord wrote:

Sweetleaf wrote:

Fnord wrote:

Who_Am_I wrote:

Fnord wrote:

AardvarkGoodSwimmer wrote:

And at the same time, we can have (good, respectful, communicative) services more readily available. For example, this woman's son may prefer living in a decently run small-group home part of the time and then with his family the other part of the time. And this arrangement may work for the other family members, too.

Paid for by ... ?

The same people who were going to pay for the institutions that you agreed were a good idea not half an hour ago?

Taxpayers. But so what? Better to spend billions protecting Americans from real threats within our own borders, than to spend billions protecting Americans from threats that have not existed for over 20 years outside our borders. $1,000,000,000 ... I wonder how many doses of Demerol that could buy?

Taking away the rights of mentally ill people is not exactly protecting americans from real threats

If the only way a mentally ill person is able to exercise his or her rights is to buy a gun and shoot up a classroom full of children, then he or she deserves to have those rights taken away.

I think its safe to say the majority of mentally ill people do not buy guns to shoot a classroom full of kids. Of course if someone commits a crime with a gun they should have the right to own one taken away....being mentally ill does not mean one has committed a crime with a gun or will do so. Do I think every mental ill person should own a gun, but same goes for non mentally ill who can also be irresponsible or commit crimes with them.

Sweetleaf wrote:

...that is assuming mentally ill people are a threat and treating them as such regardless of if they have committed any crimes.

Great idea! Yes, lets wait until another 20 children are blown away by a madman before anything is done to stop him.

How exactly would treating mentally ill people in general as a threat because they 'might' commit violence stopping mass shootings? If anything it will just increase stigma and alienation which when combined with mental illness certainly does not make violence less likely...Stigma and ostracism towards a certain segment of the population would be counter productive.

Sweetleaf wrote:

Well, doctor, what do you suggest be done instead?

Well there is outpatient therapy for starters........throwing anyone whos mentally ill in an institution so the public doesn't have to deal with them and just in case they might hurt someone regardless of if there is any evidence to support such a concern is a ridiculous idea. It does not have to reach that point, but one issue is lack of available help......its incredibly difficult to even get basic therapy consisting of talking to a therapist once a week or less often, not to mention all the stigma that already comes with mental illness.

_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.

cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,960

23 Dec 2012, 8:47 pm

Fnord wrote:

Sweetleaf wrote:

Fnord wrote:

Who_Am_I wrote:

Fnord wrote:

AardvarkGoodSwimmer wrote:

And at the same time, we can have (good, respectful, communicative) services more readily available. For example, this woman's son may prefer living in a decently run small-group home part of the time and then with his family the other part of the time. And this arrangement may work for the other family members, too.

Paid for by ... ?

The same people who were going to pay for the institutions that you agreed were a good idea not half an hour ago?

Taxpayers. But so what? Better to spend billions protecting Americans from real threats within our own borders, than to spend billions protecting Americans from threats that have not existed for over 20 years outside our borders. $1,000,000,000 ... I wonder how many doses of Demerol that could buy?

Taking away the rights of mentally ill people is not exactly protecting americans from real threats

If the only way a mentally ill person is able to exercise his or her rights is to buy a gun and shoot up a classroom full of children, then he or she deserves to have those rights taken away.

Sweetleaf wrote:

...that is assuming mentally ill people are a threat and treating them as such regardless of if they have committed any crimes.

Great idea! Yes, lets wait until another 20 children are blown away by a madman before anything is done to stop him.

Sweetleaf wrote:

Well, doctor, what do you suggest be done instead?

Re-examine our inalienable rights, route out the inconsistencies to them and re-design them. This means liberty is not always inalienable. Case in point is Typhoid Mary. I agree with what they had to do with her which is why our inalienable rights are inconsistent and not so inalienable or they are only inalienable but to certain extents. Her liberty had to be taken away to protect other people's lives.

I agree with what you say so to make this consistent do you agree that some of our rights are not so inalienable and that maybe our founding fathers were partially wrong in what they said? Could these strict constitutionalists and right wingers that you fall into be barking up the wrong tree when they say we have to fight for our rights which seem inconsistent anyway with the concept of inalienablility?

By your own standard would you have yourself placed in an institution as well?

Here is another thing I do not understand. How does a group of people collectively have rights? Isn't this one of the things right wingers and libertarians preach against. What your telling me is one group people has special rights is this true? Why doesn't this apply to miniorities and affirmative action?

Why such glaring inconsistencies by those of your beliefs Fnord? Fnord as a right winger wants groups to collectively have rights. Why do right wingers pick and choose their beliefs only if they're convenient for them?

Last edited by cubedemon6073 on 23 Dec 2012, 9:10 pm, edited 6 times in total.

Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

23 Dec 2012, 8:49 pm

Fnord wrote:

If the only way a mentally ill person is able to exercise his or her rights is to buy a gun and shoot up a classroom full of children, then he or she deserves to have those rights taken away.

And how many mentally ill people do this?

Quote:

Great idea! Yes, lets wait until another 20 children are blown away by a madman before anything is done to stop him.

The vast majority of mentally ill people do not go on killing sprees. Also, what makes these sprees lethal is the access to lethal means, such as firearms. On the same day that the spree in CT happened, a Chinese man had a knife spree in China. He injured ~20 people but killed none. Not that this should have happened either, but trying to pick one factor that is socially palatable (further marginalizing mentally ill people) to the exclusion of all others is not going to solve anything.

Quote:

Well, doctor, what do you suggest be done instead?

I somehow doubt your medical credentials are any more valid than Sweetleaf's.

I would personally suggest increased in-community services for mentally ill people, and not resort to increased institutionalization which is also associated with abuses against patients. People shouldn't be deprived of all of their rights because a relatively small percentage of people who fit that profile engage in violent acts. What you suggest is equivalent to saying that all gun owners should be sent to prison because someone might shoot up a school.

Riding on the wave of outrage about this situation in order to suggest locking up all schizophrenics is pretty ruthlessly exploitative.

Surfman
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Aug 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,938
Location: Homeward bound

23 Dec 2012, 8:58 pm

Fnord wrote:

What we also need to bring back is a greater emphasis on the "Common Good" over the rights of schizophrenic individuals.

sounds like something from a third reich rally
none of these recent shootings could have been predicted
they never can, the offenders were first timers
how many nut jobs bought guns in the last week?

if you want to target delusional paranoids
over all others
for the 'common good'
you may be facing a mirror of your own making....

Page 1 of 4 [ 57 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Jump to:

The Tipping Point for Mental Illness Post Reply New Topic

The Tipping Point for Mental Illness