Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Before you all get on your high horses about institutionalizing the mentally ill, my mother was paranoid schizophrenic in addition to being an alcoholic. She belonged in a locked nursing facility, because she didn't have the capacity to care for herself. She and her POS boyfriend would sit around and get drunk together. The last time I visited her unannounced (because I hadn't been able to get hold of her by phone), the place was a pig stye, there were dirty dishes all over the kitchen, the floor was filthy, and my mother was wearing a ratty old bathrobe over a pair of underwear, smoking like a chimney, with her lips all puffy from the alcohol. I had legal conservatorship over her for a year, and at the end of that year, I refused to renew it. I was afraid that I would be held liable, but there was nothing I could do. There were NO beds available in the locked nursing facilities where she should have been placed. This was back in the mid-80s. Nothing has improved; it has only gotten worse. (And for anyone who would argue that I should have been taking care of her, I was working full time, married, and had a two-year-old daughter. My mother lived twenty miles away, and my daughter needed me more. It was just that simple.)
Like it or not, severely mentally ill people need to be locked up. They're too sick to understand that they're sick. The alternative to institutionalizing them is this lovely revolving door we have now of homelessness, crime, jail, release. It's not working, period.
To anyone saying that I want to "trample on basic rights": Until you've dealt with mental illness up close, you have no idea what it's like, and how difficult it is to convince someone to get treatment or to stay on medication. It's a losing battle most of the time, and I don't blame anyone who gives up on an unstable, resistant family member.
I think many responses to your testimony are overlooking an important part that indicated your legal conservatorship, meaning this person was already determined not to be competent for self-care. I also have a family member with severe schizophrenia. I intimately understand, without dismissing others' experience, in the way that only people with afflicted family can truly understand. And we LOL, er, don't like being lectured about our understanding.
Along with the other thread there are a lot of strong-arm suggestions floating about. Dealing with the homeless begins with trust. Some tactics in fact alienate them from aid as well as cost us more money. Destruction of their property, for one, often includes any official identification. How much more time do you think it takes for outreach personnel to help replace this stuff?
When I hear people bemoan how nothing is being done, I think of the many folks who are actually doing something in Skid Row, trying to establish trusted outreach so they can take aid to the next level. Here's an article on C3. We can lament the "nothing" or we can support--at least acknowledge--the something. The New Skid Row Squad - Curbed LA
As for your question of what to do with the severe cases, I'll restate what I wrote a few posts previously:
What to do with the few who won't accept? Leave them be. By the time we get down to those few numbers, if the few remaining are not dangerous to the public as defined by the courts, the public will suffer little discomfort or inconvenience. Sad those few will simply die? They'll not be recovered wherever so that is hard in an institution or on the streets. Sometimes life is sad and harsh.
I don't see leaving gravely disabled people out on the street to fend for themselves a solution. Each of these persons are still human beings, knowing they cannot care for themselves,
as a civilized society we owe them some level of care.
Yes, life can be sad or harsh, I see no reason to make it more harsh for the defenseless.
I don't see leaving gravely disabled people out on the street to fend for themselves a solution. Each of these persons are still human beings, knowing they cannot care for themselves,
as a civilized society we owe them some level of care.
Yes, life can be sad or harsh, I see no reason to make it more harsh for the defenseless.
We will continue to disagree on this issue.
I didn't say it was a solution. I said it is a reality.
I didn't say it was a solution. I said it is a reality.
Your response was to my question of what care/treatment you propose for the gravely mentally disabled people who are now on the streets or in detention facilities?
Are you opposed to any involuntary psychiatric care or treatment? Are you stating you would prefer gravely disabled persons be left on the street to fend for them self if they refuse voluntary shelter?
Your response was to my question of what care/treatment you propose for the gravely mentally disabled people who are now on the streets or in detention facilities?
Are you opposed to any involuntary psychiatric care or treatment? Are you stating you would prefer gravely disabled persons be left on the street to fend for them self if they refuse voluntary shelter?
You've said nothing about adding "in detention facilities" to considerations.
Persons in detention for legally valid reasons are legally subject to evaluations and treatments.
I've said nothing about being "opposed to any involuntary psychiatric care or treatment" under conditions met by contemporary definitions of law.
Persons who can be ajudged an imminent danger to themselves or the public can already be detained under our laws and treated.
I've said nothing about "preferring gravely disabled persons be left on the street to fend for themselves if they refuse voluntary shelter." I don't "prefer it" at all. I "accept" that a very small number of homeless, including some gravely disabled, will refuse help and shelter. The reality of some extreme cases is that they will not be made any happier or content or restoratively healthy in forced internment. They are the walking dead. It happens. But not often. Almost all can be coaxed into safety if offered without conditions.
joggers should stop running on the sidewalks and confine themselves to the roads
I am a long distance runner not a jogger. If i lived where the drivers weren't douche bag idiots that drive like maniacs then i may possibly run on the road instead of the sidewalk because it is better on the feet sometimes. A runner is also considered a pedestrian so i have the right to be on the sidewalk. So your suggestion is pretty ignorant......
You've said nothing about adding "in detention facilities" to considerations.
Persons in detention for legally valid reasons are legally subject to evaluations and treatments.
I've said nothing about being "opposed to any involuntary psychiatric care or treatment" under conditions met by contemporary definitions of law.
Persons who can be ajudged an imminent danger to themselves or the public can already be detained under our laws and treated.
I've said nothing about "preferring gravely disabled persons be left on the street to fend for themselves if they refuse voluntary shelter." I don't "prefer it" at all. I "accept" that a very small number of homeless, including some gravely disabled, will refuse help and shelter. The reality of some extreme cases is that they will not be made any happier or content or restoratively healthy in forced internment. They are the walking dead. It happens. But not often. Almost all can be coaxed into safety if offered without conditions.
My question to you #49, included the term in detention facilities.
I never said you mentioned "opposed to any involuntary psychiatric care or treatment", "preferring gravely disabled persons be left on the street to fend for themselves if they refuse voluntary shelter." I asked you the question of what your oppose and prefer based on your previous posts.
Gravely disabled persons can be "detained" as you call it, the people you call "the walking dead".
My question to you #49, included the term in detention facilities.
I never said you mentioned "opposed to any involuntary psychiatric care or treatment", "preferring gravely disabled persons be left on the street to fend for themselves if they refuse voluntary shelter." I asked you the question of what your oppose and prefer based on your previous posts.
Gravely disabled persons can be "detained" as you call it, the people you call "the walking dead".
Looked back at post #49. Yes, I missed that line. But not clear why you are focusing on it as my answer obviously covers those in detention for mental problems.
And, I didn't say you said that I said (etc.). I simply stated that I haven't and don't oppose involuntary detainment, treatment, care, as defined by contemporary law. To whatever extent gravely disabled people can be detained now, as the courts have ruled on the nuances of constitutional law, I accept. I've made that clear several times - so what is your picking point? It appears to be possible you feel a personal dislike for some things I've presented? If so, enumerate them clearly and I'll respond / debate if you'd like. I've provided some legal links demonstrating this is a tricky, nuanced issue. I don't find anything the courts have hashed on it to be outrageous and I'm not protesting any decisions that detain or block detention. I can live with the reality that some tortured individuals are beyond reach - detained or on the streets. As I wrote previously, nearly all can be coaxed into an increased environment of security by professional outreach experienced in gaining trust of the mentally ill where there are no demands and expectations placed of the disabled individual. Pretty much any who are so out of touch as to be unreachable - are, in fact, detainable anyway.
I don't know why the homeless need to live right in L.A. when middle class families get priced out daily.
Hear hear! They don't need to live right in L.A. There are less expensive areas in the middle of the country, if you can't afford it, you can't stay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt
Contrary to myth, virtually every homeless person, even the severely mentally ill and addicted, DO prefer to accept individual private rooms with their own lock. They crave it. And the majority will accept medication and services when they have personal, non-judgemental, no-strings-attached, security.
Non-judgmental? No-strings-attached? Beggars can't be choosers. If you can't afford McDonalds you don't get to demand Ruth Chris's. They want individual private rooms with locks? Even military service members often don't get those.
Your response was to my question of what care/treatment you propose for the gravely mentally disabled people who are now on the streets or in detention facilities?
Are you opposed to any involuntary psychiatric care or treatment? Are you stating you would prefer gravely disabled persons be left on the street to fend for them self if they refuse voluntary shelter?
Ok I'm going to take one more stab at answering you. You are talking about two separate issues, involuntary confinement under California 5150 and laws restricting the forced use of psychotropic drugs on the mentally ill.
1) 5150 Hold. A person can be detained for 72 hour ONLY if these criteria are met "...When a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled, a peace officer, professional person in charge of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment for up to 72 hours" Being an alcoholic is not a reason for a 5150 hold, nor is sleeping on the street. Running out into traffic or failing to feed oneself are reason for a detention.
An individual “has a ‘significant’ constitutionally protected ‘liberty interest’ in ‘avoiding the unwanted administration of antipsychotic drugs. Therefore, forensic mental health clients are presumed to have the right to refuse psychotropic medications. Accordingly, absent informed consent, the state may only force medication in two situations: 1. An “emergency situation” requiring forced medication. [Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5332(e)] 2. Other “specific criteria” are met. Specific Criteria The specific criterion that must be satisfied depends on the nature of the client’s commitment. For purposes of this publication, forensic mental health commitments include: a Mentally Disordered Offender (MDO), a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP), a prisoner, a state prison transferee, Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGI), or Incompetent
to Stand Trial (IST)."
You can certainly argue for changing the law, although that would be tough since those policies were largely shaped by federal court /Supreme Court decisions, but with the laws that are currently in place it is very difficult to involuntarily commit someone to a mental hospital and even more difficult to 'treat' them once they are committed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
She belonged in a locked nursing facility, because she didn't have the capacity to care for herself. She and her POS boyfriend would sit around and get drunk together. The last time I visited her unannounced (because I hadn't been able to get hold of her by phone), the place was a pig stye, there were dirty dishes all over the kitchen, the floor was filthy, and my mother was wearing a ratty old bathrobe over a pair of underwear, smoking like a chimney, with her lips all puffy from the alcohol. I had legal conservatorship over her for a year, and at the end of that year, I refused to renew it. I was afraid that I would be held liable, but there was nothing I could do. There were NO beds available in the locked nursing facilities where she should have been placed. This was back in the mid-80s. Nothing has improved; it has only gotten worse. (And for anyone who would argue that I should have been taking care of her, I was working full time, married, and had a two-year-old daughter. My mother lived twenty miles away, and my daughter needed me more. It was just that simple.)
