
I found my father living on the street - Turukawa
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34420194
======
SpaghettiCat
What kind of society lets a mentally ill man roam the streets, deteriorating,
instead of institutionalising him and helping him recover?

~~~
onion2k
Many mentally ill people are still in a position where they can still make
decisions for themselves, but their illness means that they choose things that
are ostensibly bad for them eg refusing help to get off the streets, help with
addiction, stopping them committing suicide, etc. That means society has to
decide between forcing people to do things against their will or respecting
their decision even though it's what we as a society believe is bad. In order
to intervene in someone's life to help them you have to decide how ill someone
has to be before you step in.

That is _not_ a straightforward choice, and choosing to let people do things
that are bad for them doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the society. It
may mean that bad things happen, but the converse, where society steps in when
you're deemed 'incapable', might be worse if it's not managed exceptionally
well.

As an example, consider whether should someone who is depressed to the point
of needing medication be banned from buying alcohol (which is a depressant)
because it'll make their situation worse, or should society let depressed
people use alcohol as an escape from their illness? Does being ill mean you
have to give up your right to decide how to live your life?

~~~
empressplay
In fact, the absolute worst thing you can do with someone whose still
"fighting" is to institutionalise them. Once you label and stigmatise them
that way, they tend to give up fighting, and whatever benefit they were to
society, even in a limited capacity, is then lost.

You want them to keep fighting.

~~~
loceng
This is why I think mobile vehicles that visit the homeless (for medical,
dental, showers, food) are just so brilliant and wonderful.

------
roma1n
Her dad apparently made a great recovery; the sad thing is that the event that
made it possible is a heart attack, i.e. an organic condition. Shows how
little society cares about mental illness IMHO (although free will issues have
been pointed out)

------
Mz
I read (or skimmed) most of the comments here first, before reading the
article. The content of the article was not what I expected after reading the
debate here about whether or not to just lock up "crazy"/homeless people.

I am currently homeless. I am not mentally ill. I am medically handicapped. I
am very clear what I need. I need an income that does not keep me sick. I find
it frustrating to read discussions of this sort.

I think a lot of people on the street would be far better off and face far
fewer barriers to getting their life back together if there was dramatically
less prejudice. Most homeless people are on the street because they have
overwhelming personal problems that society does not have good solutions for,
not because these individuals are incompetent. Even if you are extraordinarily
competent and know exactly what you need and want in order to get your life
functional again, the degree to which you face prejudice and people who are
dismissive, disrespectful, and controlling makes it an uphill battle, much
more so than I think it really needs to be.

The baseline difficulties are plenty hard on their own if you have certain
conditions. But facing so much social stigma and often offered "help" of a
sort that makes you want to scream "Please stop helping me!" while denied
access to the kinds of help you actually need, that more middle class people
can more readily access, sometimes just for asking because they don't face the
same stigma and prejudice -- that alone is pretty crazy making. It usually
does not go over well to try to comment on such frustrations. People want to
see themselves as good and right and do not want to hear that they are making
things harder and are behaving in a classist manner. I am often at a loss as
to where can you talk about such things and have it be a productive
discussion?

I think that really needs to change. If we can change that, then being
homeless becomes less of a trap that seems nigh impossible to escape.

------
nekgrim
Beautiful story. Not very relative to HN I think, but it's good to see the
world throught other points of view, sometimes.

Thanks for this post.

~~~
Turukawa
There's an idea by the writer, almost lost in the article, that I thought is
brilliant:

"When he was in hospital without any documents or ID I came up with the idea
of medical bracelets for homeless people. I bought about 100 waterproof USB
wristbands which can hold important information and I've given away about 60
so far."

There are any number of people made homeless through mental illness. They are
often lost in the system when they become critically ill, and such an
identifier would help medical professionals to reunite these people with their
families.

~~~
danieltillett
Couldn't the same thing be done by a wristband with just a shortened weblink.
The advantage is you could update the website and the link could be engraved
on the wristband.

~~~
reacweb
tatoo a url ;-)

~~~
danieltillett
Well not to Godwin the thread I think that might be taking things a bit too
far.

~~~
viewer5
You're Godwinning it pretty hard. Do you have a more lucid and less Godwinny
argument than "well, Hitler!" ?

~~~
DanBC
The government tattooing people who have an illness that increases paranoia
seems sub-optimal.

You'd definitely have people cutting the tattoos off.

------
Thimothy
Man, so many comments, so many musings about individual freedom and whatnot,
and I have yet to see one that mentions the actual, and IMHU perfectly
logical, criteria that mental care institutions use to decide whether to
intern someone against their will:

"Is this person a serious danger for himself/herself or other people?"

Note that it's not the institution the one to make the decision, but a judge.
And, also, taking completely someones freedom away is a very extreme measure
that will only be considered for really extreme cases, there are a lot of
middle grounds, from compulsory regular visits to the doctor to home visits
from the doctor. But all of this, is not usually necessary because most of the
people that are mentally ill, know that there is something wrong with them and
will voluntarily seek treatment.

It's at least peculiar than when people from the US are asked about mental
healthcare, their visceral reaction is "OMG!!! THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE AWAY MY
FREEDOM!!!". So much fear, so little idea about how an actual mental care
system works.

Source: exGF psychiatrist in a western European country with a strong public
healthcare network.

~~~
kaitai
In the US though there is a sad twist to this story. I know a family with a
mentally ill adult daughter. They have health insurance, but insurance doesn't
want to cover "unnecessary treatments." Sometimes when the daughter has had a
psychotic episode or another acute difficulty, insurance has not been willing
to cover inpatient treatment/overnight stays. On at least one occasion, the
family has waited with fear and danger to figure out how she can get
treatment, only to get the blessed call from the police: Your daughter hasn't
hurt anyone else (yet), but she totaled her car/got caught stealing/got found
by police in the street; since we've arrested her and do believe she's a
threat to herself or others we can admit her on a 72 hour hold. And now
insurance will cover it.

When compulsory doctor visits are not working, care is not available to those
who need it in the US because of cost and insurance. It's not government
taking away our freedom here, and it's a pity more Americans don't see this.

------
turbostyler
Does anyone know why this story is suddenly in the news? I remember reading
her original post at least a year ago, which had all of the same photos. Now,
I'm seeing it all over Reddit and here. It feels like that Gotye song all over
again.

------
kriro
I think it's very unethical that she published the initial pictures without
consent (from what I understand, sounds like he didn't know the pictures until
she showed him when he was better) even if she is a family member and did it
"in good faith" and even when he gave her implicit permission after the fact.

I also can't help but wonder why she didn't bring him to a hospital when she
first saw him in the streets. I'm actually shocked that she basically let him
wander around knowing his condition.

Thankfully this turned out fine but it leaves me fairly disheartened. Why
wasn't he brought to a hospital by someone, people clearly saw him wandering
around. I mean I can understand letting him be and live free if you know
nothing about him (other people passing by daily) but she knew his condition
and should have intervened herself imo.

~~~
chris_wot
She couldn't. You cannot make someone go to a hospital if they aren't harming
themselves or others.

~~~
kriro
Well you can try. From the post it sounds like she "just" (it was obviously
not easy) walked away. I don't see that she involved a psychiatrist or tried
to get outpatient treatment (whatever that is called in the US) awarded. AFAIK
the latter can be gotten if the person is diagnosed and not living safely, I'd
say that's certainly possible. [http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/legal-
resources/hawai...](http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/legal-
resources/hawaii)

I'm probably misunderstanding the post but she had no problem publishing the
pictures initially and talks a lot about how hard everything was for her.
Apart from the happy end there isn't much about "what did I do to change the
situation for him". The time spans are odd, seems like she "just" went on with
her life and let him wander about until he finally collapsed.

Once again I'm not trying to say she's heartless or anything but the post is
fairly gut wrenching to read. There's too little information on the concrete
steps taken to help him.

~~~
kaitai
Nope. For your assisted outpatient treatment, for instance, you must show that
the person

"have a history of non-compliance with treatment that has: been a significant
factor in his or her being in a hospital, prison or jail at least twice within
the last thirty-six months or [] resulted in one or more acts, attempts or
threats of serious violent behavior toward self or others within the last
forty-eight months; and

be unlikely to voluntarily participate in treatment; and

be, in view of his or her treatment history and current behavior, in need of
assisted outpatient treatment in order to prevent a relapse or deterioration
which would be likely to result in: a substantial risk of physical harm to the
patient as manifested by threats of or attempts at suicide or serious bodily
harm or conduct demonstrating that the patient is dangerous to himself or
herself, or a substantial risk of physical harm to other persons as manifested
by homicidal or other violent behavior by which others are placed in
reasonable fear of serious physical harm"

etc. So if he hasn't showed that he's going to harm himself or someone else,
there's no help from our health care system, whether the government or
insurance. No one will admit him and no one will pay for it. Trying to
forcibly or bodily move the guy would be a crime for the daughter.

[http://mentalillnesspolicy.org/aot/assisted-outpatient-
treat...](http://mentalillnesspolicy.org/aot/assisted-outpatient-treatment-
guide.html)

------
Ideabile
Really touching story. Nothing to say about.

------
cryoshon
Really enjoyed this story, the pictures at the end are very rewarding to see.

------
dpacmittal
Very uplifting. Thanks for sharing.

