Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Sean's avatar

Thing about mental illness is, we use to keep them in asylums until the movie one flew over the cook coos nest came out and exposed the abuse that went on in them. Instead of "revamping" the system they thought it would be "more humane" to release the patients. Ya more "humane" for them to fend for themselves for food, shelter and clothing. It won't be until we go back to putting them in a hospital that will help them that society will be just a little bit safer. Some times we have to consider what is best for someone and I'm sorry but if that means we have to take away some of their rights to do so then so be it. Because some people can't make "sound decisions" for themselves.

Thomas Dodson's avatar

Thank you for your article. Public perceptions and remedies are a way to find ways to make things better.

I think, as often happens when writing about mental illness, there is a tendency to mischaracterize a diagnosis and create more stigma. In fact, many people with schizophrenia do quite well with treatment, have few side effects, and a significant number might have a significant break in reality, and fully recover, with no treatment whatsoever. Of course, there are blatant examples of severe illness, which Rosen documents, as do you in the Grail case, and of course we need broad reform of the police handling of these cases and the mental health system. While both these agencies, the police, and the mental health system deserve scrutiny and reform, you failed to mention what is probably been the biggest contributor of our difficulties, which is the legal professions neglect of the severely mentally ill. For many years, they have sat on their hands, not properly devising a significant legal remedy for the delicate balance between the liberty interests of the severely mentally ill and the public need for safety, civility, and beauty in the town square. The adoption nationwide of defining the key legal issue, as the patients right to refuse, attributing it as a civil rights matter, rather than a practical reality can't be more evident, and probably more than anything else has caused the very problems we have in our major cities and elsewhere. And on the other hand, even now, we have no judicial hearing for civil commitment before at best seven days and usually much longer. In other words, people who are forced into treatment by physicians in local hospitals, have much less civil rights than criminals who are jailed who at least get arraigned before a judge. And even worse, once hospitalized forcibly, they retain their right to consent or nonconsent to treatment, making their treatment often ineffectual and temporary. We force them into treatment, and then we don't treat them. I could go on and on, but leave it to say that someone with some common sense needs to devise a different way, so that the immediate dangerousness issues at times, along with those who are gravely ill and refusing help, can get the kind of proper care for a limited period, which in modern psychiatry should be no longer than six weeks.

5 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?