Welcome to the Prison Talk Online Community! Take a Minute and Sign Up Today!






Go Back   Prison Talk > MEDICAL & HEALTH > Mental Health
Register Entertainment FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

Mental Health Pleae use this forum for all mental health related issues dealing with the prison system.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #126  
Old 10-05-2017, 02:00 PM
nimuay's Avatar
nimuay nimuay is offline
Super Moderator

PTO Super Moderator Pumpkin Hunt Participant 2014 Easter Egg Hunt 2013 - Participant 

Donation Award 
 

Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: new york
Posts: 23,134
Thanks: 5,166
Thanked 27,121 Times in 9,896 Posts
Default

When you talk about the wrongs done to one person because of their mental illness, and hold that to be the highest order of wrong, you completely forget all the people who have to deal with the results. The first responders, the family, the victim/s, the hospitals, etc. They all have to deal with the mess that's left over from leaving a psychotic to their own whims. They have to debrief, have to go through some counseling, sometimes leave their jobs. That's a lot of ripples from allowing one stone into the pond.

I know. I've been one of those affected people.
__________________
You'll know you've created God in your own image when He hates all the people you do.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #127  
Old 10-05-2017, 02:21 PM
prisonlady prisonlady is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Quebec Canada
Posts: 506
Thanks: 2
Thanked 399 Times in 212 Posts
Default

I didn't forget about others. It's just a matter of whose interests I'm more willing to sacrifice when it is not possible to protect both to the same extent.

Unfortunately, when things go wrong, this amounts to choosing who the victim should be, if there must be a victim at all. I would rather protect the individual freedom of the mentally ill. You would rather protect the safety of other people. It's just a matter of priorities, that is, of choosing the least bad alternative out of two that are both very bad.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 10-05-2017, 02:27 PM
WeepingWillow's Avatar
WeepingWillow WeepingWillow is offline
Southern Fried Site Moderator

PTO Site Moderator 

 

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,595
Thanks: 2,681
Thanked 2,496 Times in 972 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by prisonlady View Post
If by "being unable to adhere to the social contract" you mean committing crimes, it is just fair that they should be placed where all the other criminals are. There is not need for "beds" or, since there may be some exceptions I haven't though of, such as a few extreme cases, perhaps there is a need for a small number of beds. Maybe they should be in nicer places, for example, but not more numerous.

However, getting people into beds "before they shoot up a movie theater, elementary school, or political rally" is just wrong because it amounts to though crime.

Any system will necessarily fail to meet the needs of a number of people. By choosing one approach over another, one is choosing which risks to focus on and what kind of people to allow to fall between the cracks on occasion. It's just that pro-psychiatry people are choosing to focus on protecting the society at large, at the risk of harming a certain proportion of the people labeled as mentally ill, while Psych Rights people are focusing on defending individual freedom at the risk of failing to prevent problems caused by the mentally ill.
How is suggesting that the mentally ill be locked away in prison due to circumstances beyond their control protecting their freedom? That sounds like the exact opposite.

From my perspective, Anti Psych is harmful to BOTH the mentally ill and society. No one wins. The very sick are abandoned and neglected. The sort of sick have reduced access to resources and get more sick. And society pays the price.

Have you ever been in imminent danger from someone with severe mental health issues? Were you willing to be battered or killed in order to protect his/her "freedom?
__________________
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to WeepingWillow For This Useful Post:
nimuay (10-05-2017), yourself (10-05-2017)
  #129  
Old 10-05-2017, 02:51 PM
prisonlady prisonlady is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Quebec Canada
Posts: 506
Thanks: 2
Thanked 399 Times in 212 Posts
Default

Suggesting that the mentally ill be locked away in prison is protecting their freedom in the following way: if they commit crimes, they go to prison. If they do not commit crimes, they remain free. That is, they are treated like everybody else, whether mentally ill or not, and they only lose their freedom for what they actually do, not for what they might do.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 10-05-2017, 05:44 PM
nimuay's Avatar
nimuay nimuay is offline
Super Moderator

PTO Super Moderator Pumpkin Hunt Participant 2014 Easter Egg Hunt 2013 - Participant 

Donation Award 
 

Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: new york
Posts: 23,134
Thanks: 5,166
Thanked 27,121 Times in 9,896 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by prisonlady View Post
I didn't forget about others. It's just a matter of whose interests I'm more willing to sacrifice when it is not possible to protect both to the same extent.

Unfortunately, when things go wrong, this amounts to choosing who the victim should be, if there must be a victim at all. I would rather protect the individual freedom of the mentally ill. You would rather protect the safety of other people. It's just a matter of priorities, that is, of choosing the least bad alternative out of two that are both very bad.
So you would protect the one and sacrifice the many? Sorry, that's way out of line. Those many can be children, witness Sandy Hook and a perpetrator (Adam Lanza) who was never well-treated, because of his mother's refusal to deal with enforcement of treatment.

That's the ugly reality. And you're simply wrong about how that weighs out - enforced medical treatment that constrained him would have saved the lives of those children and school personnel.
__________________
You'll know you've created God in your own image when He hates all the people you do.
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 10-05-2017, 06:24 PM
prisonlady prisonlady is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Quebec Canada
Posts: 506
Thanks: 2
Thanked 399 Times in 212 Posts
Default

If you could guess what he's going to do, you would be right. Even if it's not 100% sure, if you see something highly suspicious like a guy with a gun roaming outside a crowded venue, you don't have to see if he's going to actually shoot everyone.

What I'm having a problem with is when there is no way to know which mentally ill individuals will or will not actually become dangerous. In that case, yes, indeed, I think that it is wrong to sacrifice the individual rights of even one individual for the sake of preventing the hypothetical harm he may never cause, regardless of how many victims there will be in those incidents that actually occur. Because he could be perfectly innocent and whoever commits violent acts won't be him, I'm willing to take the chance that it could be him.

Freedom also includes the freedom to make poor decisions, but before losing it, one first has to earn it by actually committing a crime. Now, if you were talking about preventing the individual from having a gun, that would be different, even a good idea.
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 10-05-2017, 06:30 PM
nimuay's Avatar
nimuay nimuay is offline
Super Moderator

PTO Super Moderator Pumpkin Hunt Participant 2014 Easter Egg Hunt 2013 - Participant 

Donation Award 
 

Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: new york
Posts: 23,134
Thanks: 5,166
Thanked 27,121 Times in 9,896 Posts
Default

Guess what - society gets to make its poor choices every bit as much as those individuals you're trying to protect from coercive medicating. It chooses to coerce/compel.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
__________________
You'll know you've created God in your own image when He hates all the people you do.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to nimuay For This Useful Post:
yourself (10-05-2017)
  #133  
Old 10-05-2017, 06:55 PM
prisonlady prisonlady is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Quebec Canada
Posts: 506
Thanks: 2
Thanked 399 Times in 212 Posts
Default

That simply means that the mentally ill are now a persecuted minority. That may change in the future like it happened with other such persecuted people.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 10-05-2017, 07:43 PM
nimuay's Avatar
nimuay nimuay is offline
Super Moderator

PTO Super Moderator Pumpkin Hunt Participant 2014 Easter Egg Hunt 2013 - Participant 

Donation Award 
 

Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: new york
Posts: 23,134
Thanks: 5,166
Thanked 27,121 Times in 9,896 Posts
Default

Is all this about getting your point across about yourself? Are you trying to take an unfortunate experience from your history and make it global?
__________________
You'll know you've created God in your own image when He hates all the people you do.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 10-05-2017, 08:12 PM
prisonlady prisonlady is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Quebec Canada
Posts: 506
Thanks: 2
Thanked 399 Times in 212 Posts
Default

No, it's the American psychiatric model that is becoming global. I would recommend reading "Crazy Like Us: The Globalization of the American Psyche" by Ethan Watters.

The book says that this psychiatric model and its illnesses are spreading around the world as the American culture spreads too. "American-style depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and anorexia have begun to spread around the world like contagions, and the virus is us."

Mind you, that doesn't mean that something resembling mental illness won't exist if the model is not there. It always existed, since the notion of mental illness has some basis in reality. However, there will probably be less. The current system includes many things that are probably normal, or very mild problems, or problems that are not considered illnesses in other cultures.

Moreover, illness will take different forms and some types of illness such as anorexia may hardly exist until the American model is adopted. It is true that there are also illnesses that exist, or used to exist, in other cultures but not in the American model.
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 10-05-2017, 08:38 PM
yourself yourself is offline
attorney
 

Join Date: May 2010
Location: around
Posts: 11,299
Thanks: 3,944
Thanked 19,454 Times in 7,023 Posts
Default

You are universalizing something that just doesn't happen legally. Legally, they have to find that a person is an imminent danger to self or others before getting an involuntary order, either for drugs or for hospitalization. You're not an imminent danger if you believe that every. Body is a warm fuzzy out to make the world a better place, or if you see tulips in every corner, or the voices in your head are giving you cookie recipes. You don't even come to the attention of law enforcement or mental health court for those things.

Let's remember that - you don't come to the attention of mental health court until somebody calls and has the police do a welfare check or your shrink calls or a few good citizens swear out a mental health complaint.

What happens after that? You're not held for 72 hours. It isn't to that stage yet.

Nope, you get a visit from the police, or the mental health crisis team, or whatever the vehicle for intervention is is your area. Police used to be the standard, and police generally accompany now, but they are not the main players.

Anyway, you get a knock on your door. If you don't answer, they will wander around and look in the windows to make sure you're not a body laying in the foyer, a gun in your mouth. They will call. They will eventually go away and come back repeatedly over time until they make contact with you.

Once they make contact, they are doing an evaluation. They make sure you are oriented. They ask questions about your mood and state of mind. They do a basic psych inquiry that includes your plans for the future. Do you have to answer these questions? No. Will they go away if you don't answer? It depends. Show up to the door reeking of chemicals, with the makings of a Molotov cocktail in your hands, you are going to be removed from your house and taken in for closer examination by a psychiatrist. Show up in your pajamas saying, "Winter is coming!" And you might have. A delightful conversation about Game of Thrones before they wish you a fond adieu and move on to the next person. Express a desire to kill somebody AND you've taken an affirmative step towards executing a plan to kill somebody and yo are going to the hospital. You're safe if you say, you know, I'd really love to kill Hitler. I'd string him up and flay him alive. After making sure you mean the historic Adolf and you're not planning on doing the next best thing with the neonazi down the street, fond adieu.

If you believe you need help, they will transport you. If they have any doubt about your state of mind, they may transport you, but only if they think you are a danger to yourself or others.

Assuming they aren't sure and they transport you, you go and see a shrink. It happens very quickly in most states as the shrink has to sign the involuntary admissions papers. That shrink will do the basic exam, making sure you are oriented, have plans for the future, and don't have problems that you think would benefit from psychiatric help. If you think you'd benefit from psychiatric help, they will allow you to admit voluntarily, provided they have a bed. If they think you are a danger to yourself or others, they will hold you for a more thorough exam that will include testing, mostly paper and pencil, but sometimes more interpretive tests. They hold you for anywhere from four to seventy two hours depending on your state. Then, they either have to release you, or you have court to determine if you should be held beyond that, as an involuntary psychiatric patient.

They will not involuntarily medicate you without a court order unless it is absolutely necessary to protect your life or the lives of others on the ward. So, yes, your delusions or beliefs or psychosis takes a back seat to the actual lives of others. Even then, they usually place you in restraints and try to get a mandatory med court order.

In some states, if you have a psychiatric advanced directive, they have to follow your wishes even with a court order. Don't like Haldol? Have a psych advanced directive and lie in a state that respects those directives. And have a reasonable alternative, like the usual first course of calm down Drugs a fast acting benzo.

Again, it is very difficult to detain somebody against their will or to force medicate without a court order. Sometimes you are given the choice between a hospital or a medication, but that choice is yours.

All this b.s. About treating somebody against their will fails to take into account the whole nature of the beast in that you don't come to the attention of the system until you are a danger to yourself or others. An imminent danger to yourself or others.

This is not the OP's problem. The OP has a LO who's already committed a crime and created victims. Those victims and those crimes are a result of the OP's assertion of mental illness. The system in that case tried to accommodate the OP's LO by creating a result based on the treatment of that mental illness. Following statute, they did the least restrictive alternative while trying to ensure that the LO did not create more victims and got some relief from I believe it was borderline personality disorder.

Now, prisonlady, I have yet to meet somebody with borderline personality disorder who wasn't totally miserable as a result of the disorder and really, really, really wanted help with it. The psychosis that can result from a borderline cycle is scary not only to the borderline's loved ones, but to the borderline as well.

And you're missing the point that the OP's LO could easily have chosen not to put his mental illness on the table and just done prison time, time that would not have helped his mental illness, but a high functioning borderline can get away with doing prison, miserably, and come out a bit worse for wear, and gone on to commit more crimes as a result of the borderline cycle. He didn't have to choose to be treated. Instead, he chose to be treated, and to get injections to prove to the court that he was med compliant and should be out in the world. His treatment team was working with him. He was working with his treatment team. It is painful at times for the borderline, but it actually helped.

But, you are off on the Psych Rights crusade that the mentally ill should not have their problems addressed, even when they choose to put mental illness forth as a defense to a criminal charge.

Sorry, but we have a right to life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness so long as we adhere to the social contract. We have the right to expect our fellow citizens to do the same, and not shoot us because of psychosis or any other reason. The LO of the mentally ill who kill are in an exclusive club of pain that they do not need to be in. So are the victims and the families of the victims.

Ted Kazinski lived in a mountain shack away from everybody else, able to endulge in his thoughts and behaviors that resulted from his mental illness. He still killed a lot of people, but he was able to live for decades on his own, in the fog of his mental illness. He chose that rather than other alternatives, like continuing his killing spree. He chose to be a Luddite, and largely quit bombing tech people. He could have chosen to do that without victimizing anybody and society wouldn't have cared. His family still would have cared. His family still would have felt helpless to help him. But their hands would have been tied, and Kazinski could have lived out his days in a shack in the middle of no where that kept his delusions going in a direction that allowed those delusions to rule his reality. It was his choice.

Are you at all able to see the difference? Nobody's running around with needles trying to make people into the perfect little Stepford drones. Only when choose to take meds or go voluntarily into a hospital are you going to change all of that. As long as there are no overt signs of threat, you are safe in your own mind.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to yourself For This Useful Post:
Babyx (10-10-2017), Nickel Timer (10-06-2017), WeepingWillow (10-06-2017)
  #137  
Old 10-08-2017, 06:08 PM
SamiDoDamage SamiDoDamage is offline
Registered User

Easter Egg Hunt 2013 - Winner 

 

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 29
Thanks: 2
Thanked 19 Times in 7 Posts
Default

My information is old, not centuries old, but decades old anyway. From 1978-1988 I worked in mental health in Florida. The deinstitutionalization model was in full force. I spent 5 years in an inpatient setting in a local private hospital that functioned as a Baker Act receiving facility (involuntary, 72 hr holds) for the county. Then spent 5 years in outpatient settings, including liason between community placement/treatment facilities and the state hospitals serving their clients. That position included 2 days per week of visiting state facilities working on discharge planning for those clients. I have seen the floridly mentally ill, some so intractable and constantly violent that they were in 4 point restraints for years as no medication worked to do more than sedate for the duration it was in their system. I have participated in inpatient forced medication for the violently mentally ill. When I was working inpatient, a regimen of Rapid Tranquilization was developed to treat psychotic and violent patients. The medication used was haloperidol along with cogentin(to prevent side effects). It was administered every half hour to hour until the psychotic symptoms/combative behavior came under control. While the cogentin helped prevent major side effects, it did nothing for the drying effect on mucous membranes and the patient's tongues especially would become cracked and painful. I would hope newer medications are available now with less brutal side effects. I come from a place of 'least restrictive environment possible' and allowing all persons (mentally ill or not) to have as much control over their daily lives as possible without infringing on the rights of others. I saw many community based clients who were content with remaining psychotic...to a degree; most were not okay with their psychosis resulting in harm to themselves or others. Psychotic symptoms seem to ebb and flow. While content with milder delusions/hallucinations, they described more severe ones as almost physical torture. Every. single. one. of those clients wanted to be medicated forcibly if their symptoms deteriorated. Every. single. one. of those clients PREFERRED Rapid Tranquilization to standard isolation and medication until their behavior calmed (that usually took a few days to a week, but I've seen it take as long as 3 weeks). I do not recall there being any psychiatric advanced directives in that era. If they were available then, they were severely underutilized at least in the population that was dependent on government resources for treatment. I was told many times by a client that when under the influence of severe delusions/hallucinations they felt they were left with LESS choices in their daily lives. They had NO CHOICE but to depend on their inadequate cognitive resources. They had NO CHOICE but to obey the voices in their heads. One laughed at me when I described how it felt coercive to follow a doctor's order to force medication if refused when the patient's words, actions, and facial expressions indicated pure agony. He said yes, agony described how he felt, but that agony was there long before the medication was offered. He was 'unable' to accept voluntary medication BECAUSE of the delusions/hallucinations. He preferred the side effects of Rapid Tranquilization because it was a faster route to reducing the severity of the symptoms and giving him BACK his control and choices. And even while mildly psychotic HIS choice was to voluntarily take medication to maintain that mild state where he could 'talk back' to the voices and refuse to follow their directions. While many clients expressed these same things, that one client stands out for me even after all these years. I would often used the word 'brittle' to describe his psychosis. He would faithfully take his meds, make any necessary life style changes, attend therapy, etc. and remain stable for long periods of time, sometimes even through extremely stressful life events (death of a family member comes to mind) because he was committed to maintaining his control over making his own choices. He was also able to hold a job for these periods of time. Then for no reason we were ever able to identify, the meds would stop working and he would be floridly psychotic. His greatest fear was that we 'bleeding heart social workers' were going to make it so hard for someone to take control of his illness for him for a short period of time that he would be condemned to a life of NO control over his choices EVER because of what he might do in one of his floridly psychotic states. Several decades later I read this thread and wonder what has become of him and many others under the current system of treatment options...
__________________
"You may never know what results come from your action.
But if you do nothing, there will be no result."
Mahatma Gandhi
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to SamiDoDamage For This Useful Post:
Babyx (10-10-2017), Nickel Timer (10-08-2017), nimuay (10-08-2017), WeepingWillow (10-08-2017), yourself (10-09-2017)
  #138  
Old 10-10-2017, 10:36 AM
Babyx Babyx is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 67
Thanks: 21
Thanked 70 Times in 35 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yourself View Post

Sorry, but we have a right to life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness so long as we adhere to the social contract. We have the right to expect our fellow citizens to do the same, and not shoot us because of psychosis or any other reason. The LO of the mentally ill who kill are in an exclusive club of pain that they do not need to be in. So are the victims and the families of the victims.
It is an exclusive club. I would be willing to reach out to the families of Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Kazinski and others to offer support. Awkward, though.

We were fortunate to keep press and media involvement to a minimum. Everyone agreed to that. Keep a low profile, minimize social media presence, etc. No police blotter on key days. Due to influence of certain high status victims, I believe. No complaints from this end, thank you. Victims, police, prosecutors, myself, everyone agreed and we were reasonably successful in that respect. Some did leak out and the public reaction was positively frightening. Thank god we live in a society where lynch mobs are frowned upon and we value rule of law. Jury trial was a very bad idea, all agreed.

Since deinstitutionalizaltion became the norm, prisons have become the de-facto long term care provider for those who cannot make it as an outpatient. Some states are realizing this and acting upon it. Others are not. Even those that are acting, they struggle with the costs and public sentiment. We were sued by the state to cover costs. Oh well.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:07 AM.
Copyright © 2001- 2017 Prison Talk Online
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Website Design & Custom vBulletin Skins by: Relivo Media
Message Board Statistics