>a national standard that the mentally ill could only be involuntarily treated if they represented an immediate threat to themselves or others.
This has been so important for individual and civil rights. Before it many people we would today say are fine and healthy were imprisoned in psychiatric hospitals for long durations against their will. The reasons were extremely varied and "false positives" both accidental and intentional ruined lives. It was simply incompatible with the USA's legal system and basis of government.
We're in a much better place now on balance but housing of the mentally ill could and should be better. That said, any replacement system for housing has to also be voluntary. Removal of the "immediate threat to themselves or others" clause will rapidly lead to abuses doing much worse damage to individuals and society than having some crazy people walking about.
> But sunny, false notions that everyone muttering to themselves on the subway hides a sweet little self-actualized busy bee inside of them, and an impossibly myopic fixation on the abstract rights of people whose brains have hijacked their minds, has left us unable to provide the actual help the severely mentally ill need. I have found no way to penetrate the liberal consciousness on this issue.
As usual, the only way for this to change is to speak on a pile of corpses.
Personal experiences with relatives plagued by mental illness tend to dissipate the blindly cheerful view that one can find humanity in the broken pieces.
But at the same time, our own humanity is found in taking care of those that cannot take care of themselves.
The most popular product that Sigmund Freud - who became a billionaire with it, you should visit his house - sold was to testify in court about his theory. That women (in many cases minors) subconsciously and often consciously want to be raped by their father (and/or family) and therefore only have themselves to blame for "certain crimes" happening to them.
He did not just sell testimony. He also sold life imprisonment - without any chance for parole, unless your family stops paying - for the victims.
Over time the industry that grew from his example often lead to unbelievably extreme violence by the "patients". I can't imagine how that could possibly have happened. Patients who behave, get out, then commit mass murder of their own family. Again, I wonder how that could have happened.
So there are "a few" problems caused by these institutions that we don't seem to have found a good way of dealing with.
And of course, people keep lying about it. Like this article. It's acting like voluntary mental health isn't widely available - it is. This is about large-scale "involuntary commitment", about locking up large amounts of people against their will, without direct cause.
The only official reason for imprisoning these people is to be that people who make money on said imprisonment - the "doctors" deem it a medical necessity. Supposedly to counteract self-destructive behavior, which of course includes alcohol use, smoking ...
The real reason is also mentioned. That doesn't often happen. Namely to get "ugly" people off "our" streets. It says nothing about treatment actually being able to help or not (and of course there's an incredible amount of scientific data that keeps giving the same result: involuntary treatment doesn't work)
In other words, if this article truly wants to defend the case for helping these people it could do a LOT better job of doing that.
This has been so important for individual and civil rights. Before it many people we would today say are fine and healthy were imprisoned in psychiatric hospitals for long durations against their will. The reasons were extremely varied and "false positives" both accidental and intentional ruined lives. It was simply incompatible with the USA's legal system and basis of government.
We're in a much better place now on balance but housing of the mentally ill could and should be better. That said, any replacement system for housing has to also be voluntary. Removal of the "immediate threat to themselves or others" clause will rapidly lead to abuses doing much worse damage to individuals and society than having some crazy people walking about.