Serious question: We all know that gun rights are important. Yet this country's approach to mental illness and treatment is horrendous, and by not supporting mental illness treatment options we are shooting ourselves in the foot, literally. Recent events illustrate the disparity in treatment options for people with insurance vs. people without. In my state an individual was permitted to remain free while suffering a mental illness crisis and wound up freezing to death because he was in crisis and took his clothes off while in freezing temperatures. There is limited coverage available for mental health treatment with even the best insurance plans. I have very good insurance but were a member of my family to suffer a mental illness diagnosis, the remaining financial responsibility would likely bankrupt us. And that's the luck of the draw: You just take care of family no matter what. It came out later when he was identified that his family had tried to get him help and that he had tried to cooperate with treatment but had limited success because of financial problems.

Regardless of whether you're poor or affluent though, and no matter how much families try to help their relatives with mental illness, it seems like the system favors their rights over their physical well being and the protection of society. I think to myself if a naked man came and knocked on my door and it was freezing out, I would at least throw him a blanket. Why did it not occur to any of the people he encountered while begging for help to do this? They felt bad after he was found frozen to death later, but why was their first response to hunker down and hide in their house? How does a naked unarmed man likely suffering from hypothermia pose a credible threat? (I know, I know, I've seen mentally ill people when they're in crisis and they can be remarkably strong. But dang...most houses have more than one door. How hard would it be to throw out a damn blanket and give the dude instructions on where to find it while you call for help?) No one asks to be mentally ill and no one deserves the stigma it carries.

Why do we support foreign aid and pork projects while our fellow citizens are suffering? Wouldn't it be more cost effective to treat folks for mental illness before they wind up in the criminal justice system? It's like the classic which came first, the chicken or the egg puzzle...Once they've attracted criminal charges there's got to be a reckoning, but what about folks trying to get treatment and failing miserably? What about the people who need treatment, have family clamoring for them to get treatment, and yet are permitted to remain free even while evidencing break-from-reality-type behaviors? Although it was a spectacular book, I think Ken Kesey's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest did mental health medicine a real disservice. It made people afraid of supporting or getting treatment. This country is fucked up and I'm disgusted about it.

A large part of the problem, just like in working with the physically ill, are the drug and disability seekers.

My dad (psychologist) or my brother (licensed counselor) would be better suited to answer this question, but the stories both can tell about the aforementioned types would make your blood boil.


Those that need treatment can't get it.

Those that don't need it are abusing it every day.

My old man is a CEO and hasn't practiced in 10+ years, my brother does outpatient therapy/counseling; both will accept uninsured clients with few exceptions.  In some cases, their services are "free" to the client.

A big problem is proper diagnosis of the conditions. A mental health patient cant just go to the doctor and say "It hurts right here".

Shit, it took them years to get to the bottom of my wifes mental health problems. Those were some long, long years and we still arent entirely out of the woods.

I agree with your One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest analysis. The problem as I see it is there is no mandatory commitment. The crazy person has to agree and can leave treatment whenever they want. A doctor should decide when the nut is no longer a danger to themselves or others.

The pendulum has swung too far towards patient's rights and awy from safety and treatment.

I just finished reading a book called voluntary madness and I thought the author had some good insight.  To that end you ask why society and family doesn't treat people.  I think what I walked away from that book with was that there generally isn't a great treatment for a lot of the mentally ill.  The best we can manage is to dull them down and possibly lock them away so we don't have see them or deal with them.  Sadly a lot of the time that even includes family not wanting to deal with their crazy relative any longer.  Reading her commentary certainly doesn't make me think locking anyone up is going to help most people get better, based on the way most places are run, especially city hospitals that are filled with the poor and homeless.

This thread is relevent to my interests...

Nick

Tada.....we have a winner!

Aloha, Mark

Limited resources, institutional inertia, and a PC-oriented concern for patient's right to refuse treatment, all coupled with a patient in denial, far too often requires a criminal act and trial, in order to get a full evaluation and treatment.  

I was going to say let Darwin decide, but it is too complex and there are no easy or simple solutions. I know for a fact a local solution would be far superior to a national one though.

Whay are you crazy?

Who gets to decide who is 'mentally ill'?  Given the opportunity most leftists like obunghole and his ilk would LOVE to have every conservative declared mentally ill.  Same for gun owners.  There is a need for some people but who and how does the label get attached?

1) Does the government have a responsibility to take away a person's rights to make them better?



2) Does the government have the responsibility to protect someone from themselves?



3) What course of action should be taken when a disordered individual refuses to be medically compliant?




 

We use money as a medium of exchange. This leads to people thinking of a resource in terms of it’s cost. And this leads people to equating money with the resource.

Medical care (of any kind) is really the time and energy of trained medical providers and that’s all it is. Society only has so many trained psychiatrists and doctors. Furthermore, society also has a limited supply of people with minds that can accept the necessary training required to be a doctor. The same thing can be said of nurses and other medical personnel as well.

In other words, it’s not a matter of spending money. It’s a matter of spending scarce medical resources on mental health care instead of on something like cancer treatment. And since you would have to retrain all the oncologists to be psychiatrists, even this isn’t an overnight solution. Spending money isn’t the issue and nothing we do as a society can properly address the problem.

And as far as their rights go…

Mental illness isn’t something you can easily test for, like the flu. It’s complex and hard to diagnose exactly. Furthermore it’s important that a person feel free in seeking treatment without the worry that they will be institutionalized against their will. And this is actually an incentive to seek treatment for the mentally ill. If they go in for treatment voluntarily then they can always leave if they decide they don’t want to be there. If a court orders the treatment it’s another matter entirely.

And because mental illness can’t be tested for, any mental health laws become a weapon which can potentially be used against any “inconvenient” citizens. This happened in the Soviet Union. Dissidents were declared to be mentally insane and locked up.

I agree that the current system is flawed. I just don’t know how it can be fixed in the real world.

Lol and I have GUNZ!
Actually, I am dealing with a wife in the throes of some major depression to include suicidal thoughts.

Nick

From the OP's post I get the strong impression that the OP is a woman.  No offense, but there were lots of indicators in the types of arguments presented and the way they were presented.

But let's get to the point:  

Are we wasting money on money pits overseas when we should be should be doing more with it at home?  Yes.

Is there a significant focus on the rights of a person over their physical well being?  Yes, and for good reason.  It generally isn't a good idea to give the government the ability to make life-changing decisions "because we the government know better than you about what is good for you" over your own rights to make those decisions for yourself.  That kind of government power can be abused far too easily.

Naked man pulls off his own clothes and then goes around knocking on doors asking for people to help him with feeling cold?  Anyone crazy enough to do such a thing is potentially crazy enough to be a legitimate threat to you if you open your door to him.  Not going to necessarily judge the man for being crazy, but I'm not going to judge people for being hesitant about opening their doors or hesitant about approaching the crazy man, either.

I can appreciate and empathize that the stigma with mental illness sucks.  At the same time I've seen enough people with mental illness to understand why the stigma exists.  Mentall illness can be a deep, dark abyss that damages (or destroys) not only the life of the person who suffers from it but also can damage the lives of those who live with that person.  Let me be blunt.  Mentall illness can be freaking scary to be around for any length of time.

Reminds me of a time my MIL was talking with my wife about a middle-aged woman in the symphony orchestra who is single and how it is so inexplicable that no man has married her yet.  This woman is beautiful, talented, educated, etc.  Oh, she suffers from mental illness but that's supposedly no big deal (according to my MIL).  I can guarantee you that it's a big deal to the men who might have previously been involved with this lady.

As for treating mental illness, frankly it's as much an art as a science.  Personably I often think it is more of an art than a science.  There's the guess work of determining what kind of condition a person has, then the guess work of finding the right drugs to treat that condition (assuming they've properly identified the condition to begin with), then there's the guess work of finding the right dosage, to the guess work of finding what else to do if the person develops a tolerance to the first medication, etc.  It is a very time and money consuming process with no gaurantees.

In short, the situation sucks, but real world answers aren't easy to come by and taking away more people's rights is generally not the answer.

I agree. That was partly our problem. That and insurances lack of concern ir covering the costs (Which isnt right or wrong, but it is how it is).

freedom > protection



stop choosing freedoms and who gets them

My personal suggestion would be finding a way to reduce the costs of meds (without hurting the industry's incentives to develop more).

About 2 decades ago it cost around 300 million dollars to bring a drug to market, and in some cases those drugs don't even make the money back for the pharmaceutical company.  I imagine that the costs are higher today.  Reducing patents on drugs might help consumers, but then there has to be some alternative incentive to help the drug manufacturers recoup their expenses and make a profit (they are in it for profit, after all).

Insurance companies aren't in business to lose money.  As long as the drugs are expensive the insurance companies will either provide minimal coverage or else have to raise their premiums in order to provide good coverage.  Don't get me wrong, I'm sick of insurance company bureaucracy as well.

Yes, it's a serious issue that some interventions to save lives or "fix" people are expensive.  I don't think the answer is to make them free, the answer is to have catastrophic health care insurance available as a base.  Most people can pay for the broken leg out of pocket.   Having insurance that ostensibly pays for everything is stupid.  There's a lot of difference in insurance that will replace a sunken cargo and insurance that will replace a ripped sail.

eTA when you refuse to buy catastrophic insurance you're like the person who refuses to get inoculated and willfully puts the herd at risk.

Fine fine post; believe Shane knows of which he speaks. Anyone who has listened to that damn kid shouting "bang bang bang" while Jean Arthur screams knows mental illness.

Maybe the illuminati has started all these crazy rumors in order to be a widespread litmus test and mark the crazies for treatment?



It can't be that hard to investigate someone just enough to find out whether he believes the president is an illegal immigrant, or whether the mystery missile was a jetliner.



Then, when the time comes, you've got enough evidence to get them adjudicated mentally defective, and poof, a back door gun ban

There's never been proof that I was the one that made her scream....
Hehehe...how's this for a touch of mental illness?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9piQu2TDvEA&feature=related

If someone is mentally incompetent, they must be under someone else's supervision.  They have no right to run around doing whatever the voices in their head tell them to, and more than a six year old has the right to run around doing whatever he wants to.  Their "rights" are best protected by their guardians.

Been there done that, got the court conviction and 15k in mental health fees to prove it. Or I should say my wife does.

Just so you know, my wife was misdiagnosed with depression when it was actually bipolar issues. Changed her meds and its been a night and day difference. I realize this does not help you, but hopefully this might.

Many mental health issues, at the root, stem from physical issues. Its know too much serotonin or not enough dopamine can lead to mental health issues. When you examine it in depth its no different than too much or not enoguh insulin leading to diabetes. Its no different then runaway cells causing cancer. In examples of physical ailments its understood and to a degree accepted and sympathy is offered.

Mental health, at the core, is nothing more than a physical ailment that happens to affect the brain. You wuoldnt turn your back on your wife is she was diagnosed with diabetes or a heart condition and mental health isnt much different. It is a damn sight harder to deal with on a day to day level and for me was the most difficult thing I've ever went through.

Just remember she doesnt like it any more than you, and dont think of it as the difficult unexplainable mental problems but simply a physical problem. Enjoy the good days with her and stay by her through the bed. Some day it will, and does, get better.

Wont lie, that day can seem like an eternity though.

EtA:
This isnt to assume you were thinking of leaving. In my case I was as the seriousness of the illness was putting my children at risk.

EETA:

Which isnt to say I was the perfect husband through it all. It was hard to stay by her side and sometimes I put other priorities first. Although never another woman, moreso work.

Tag as I just left my pt job at state psych hospital.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

The problem is that mental illnesses are incompletely understood; diagnosis is not straightforward, nor is treatment; and mental disorders frequently exist on a continuum ranging from those with serious disorders to those who operate motor vehicles on the 610 Loop in Houston.

Most mentally ill people refuse treatment.

Sad, but true.

I don't feel qualified to use the "most" descriptor, but I have seen and known of such situations.

Because many dont think theres anything wrong with them.

The voices in my head told me you're the one that's crazy.

Aloha, Mark

The most dangerous mental illness this nation faces is Liberalism. There isn't much of a cure or treatment for it but there are methods to minimize its damage on society.

Not looking at leaving her, trying to stick with her in fact.
There is some amount of verbal abuse going on from her to our 4 year old daughter, however, so I am running a lot of interference at the moment, and WILL seperate the two of them by whatever means necessary if things continue down this path.

Nick

You two aren't alone, in dealing with this sort of thing:  My ex- is diagnosed with both bipolar and borderline personality disorders. The BPD diagnosis wasn't arrived at, until after her 2002 arrest for felony arson, in preperation for the subsequent criminal trial. The kids and I moved from New York in '07. She's still there on inpatient status, though she may be moving to a intensive outpatient status later this fall.  

How is the sex of the OP relevant to the topic? I liked your response but question the purpose of speculating on that. I wonder why you did.

I don't condone infringing anyone's rights. As the Baker act stands, people who are a danger to themselves and others can be hospitalized pending evaluation by mental health professionals, but must be released if found competent. So that base is sorta covered. The point of my outrage over the naked man freezing to death was the cowardice of people he begged for help from. He was naked and bleeding. I stand by my assertion that it would be possible to safely throw the guy a blanket from another entrance to protect yourself-but that would be too hard for some people to think of because they are sheep. Arf spends 24/7 talking about tactics, strategy, and a million ways to make chili- yet somehow lacks the resourcefulness to figure out that a house usually has two doors? So much for humanity, respect for human life, blah blah blah.

My other point was that the individual in question HAD tried to qualify for and comply with mental health treatment. There just weren't enough resources available to pay for it. He had a job but like many people, it didn't provide sufficient coverage, nor did it pay enough to allow purchase of a policy. His condition did not appear to have led to violence (yet) but what if it did? How is it cost effective to incarcerate him after a crime as opposed to funding non-residential treatment before it happens?

Your initial post was architected in such a way as to provide an almost singularly emotional perspective and provoke an emotional response from those reading it.  Sure, men often make emotional statements and arguments as well, but yours was markedly feminine in tone.  It was so overwhelming that I couldn't help but note it.  I'm sorry if that offends you.

I suppose it is relevant in that it provides us here a glimpse into the mindset influencing a large part of the population and how certain laws and policies end up being enacted.

You can't have both, simply put.

Saw this everyday working as a EMT.

What a diplomatic way of saying that women are emotional creatures and that they have should have never gotten the vote. Your opinion does not offend me in the slightest and you have every right to it. I suppose you will next assume that I am a democrat.
I do not consider a cost vs. benefits analysis of mental heath treatment vs. costs of incarceration a female concern per se; males suffer from psychiatric illnesses as frequently as women, and bear the brunt of incarceration more than women. And no rational or humane man would knowingly allow another human being to freeze to death under the conditions in which this case occurred. You do realize that every thread here on Arf that concerns violent criminals and/or sex offenders brings out the emotion in male posters, and their emotion can also be diagnosed in such statements as "Fry him; Let him ride the lightning; I'd castrate that sumbitch myself if he was in reach; Just give me five minutes alone in a room with him, etc, etc. That's not emotion? You don't think women respond similarly? There's a reason prisoners begged not to be handed over to the women during the Indian Wars. You know that, right?

Your response is so full of incorrect assumptions that I don't know where to start in correcting your mistaken ideas.  You appear to be overcome with emotional defensiveness, making it impossible at the moment to have a productive discourse.  Perhaps we can continue this discussion when you've had some time to regain your composure.

Meh. Try me, you ball o' fiery logic, you.

In summary:  Your very first sentence manifests that you were unable to read what I wrote, and instead read what your mind wanted me to write in order for you to attempt to tear me down by putting words in my mouth that I never said.

If you go back and actually read my remarks you'll note that I acknowledged the emotional arguments of men, but pointed out that your remarks had a decidedly feminine style to them.  The result of your failing to read my actual words (instead of what you wanted me to say) is you derailing your own thread further than necessary on an emotional goose chase trying to vindicate yourself by putting words into my mouth which I didn't say.

Nor did I suggest that women shouldn't have gotten the vote.  Again that is your emotional extrapolation.  It is important to understand the mindset of the emotional, such as yourself, because it is something the Conservative Right hasn't tapped into as well as the political left has done.  The Conservative right needs to find a way to convey a message that is not only rational but emotionally appealing as well.

As for whether you are a Democrat, your party affiliation never even crossed my mind until you attempted to put those words in my mouth.

The irony of you pursuing this tangent is that it has validated my original statement in my first post.

When did it become societies problem? Serious question.....at one time families took care of these things. Now, its societies problem.

I thought the mentally incompetent lost their rights.

One day I spoke to my son about the "needs" of an area near my home about the size of 1.5 miles square.  I told him that there simply wasn't enough money and resources to deal with the problems even if you spent every dollar of the entire California budget on the problems of just that one area.

People blame Ronald Reagan for being insensitive and putting mentally disturbed people on the streets.  The reality was different.  A Democratically controlled legislature adopted a liberal perspective that you should put the mentally ill in local communities and that they would go to local clinics for treatments and medicines.  As a result, people were released from institutions and put on the streets.  Of course they did not go for treatment.  The death rate (adjusted for age) was 4 times the national average.

At the federal level, a mental health clinic is mandated for every county and parish.  The results are ineffective.

Now speak about culture.  In the Chinese culture, the drug addicts and mentally ill are kept in the family unit and do not congregate in "bad areas".  Is that better.

What do you do with my youngest brother who beat both wives, abandoned his child, accussed his siblings of murdering his parents, filed complains against 6 lawyers, and the list goes on and on?

I, too would like to know the answer to your question. If someone figures it out let me know. There's a fine line with charging to government with protecting us and giving them too uch power to take people's gun away just because they think someones crazy.

Need to lock up crazies. County should have a poor farm where people go and they do the work the county needs done in exchange for help. Families need t take care of their own crazies.

 

The problem I've seen over the years is simple.  People don't want to know about it and mental health tends to get lumped in with drug abuse funding-wise.

Drug treatment programs are popular.  You are a druggie?  They can get handouts and treatment out the wazoo. This is where most of the abuse comes from. Free medical?  Free dental?  Free apartments? Druggies get it all.  Go to a class once a week and you are set.  Piss hot? Well, you just start the classes again.

Suffering from schizophrenia?  Well, you might be able to get help, but you'd better have insurance first. Otherwise, it's time to commit a crime and get a court-ordered evaluation.

Most street patients get treated like a yo-yo.  Commit a crime, get committed, get treated, get released.  Patient goes off his drug regimen, rinse and repeat. Most times, the only thing that breaks the string is the patients suicide.

This actually used to be done.  Texas had the state school system.  Essentially, a prison for the insane and retarded. Grew their own food, sewed their own clothes. Patients pretty much were dumped by their families and spent their entire lives there. A horrible system that had an incredible amount of abuse.   Get violent with staff?  That earned you a beating and a cell.  Some patients spent DECADES in such conditions.

The state school cemetery is full of headstones with just a first name.  No one remembers when or where they came from. They usually showed up as children.  Most times, it's not even the REAL name, just one given by staff.