Do you think mentally ill people should be confined to mental hospitals against their wills even if they pose no immediate threat to anyone?

[Anonymous]

It is a fascinating question. On one hand, you are forcing mentally ill people to get the help they need. This improves themselves and society. On the other hand, it's kind of a dictator move to put someone in some sort of asylum against their will, especially if they offer no immediate harm to anyone.

Yes, mentally ill people should automatically be confined to asylums until they are healed.

No! Mentally ill should have a choice (as long as they don't offer an immediate threat to anyone).

See results.

[Screenwriter]

This is not a black or white question.

In my neighborhood there is a schizophrenic guy who walks around a lot. He helps a blind guy who's his friend walk around. He always speaks and says hello, but sometimes he has verbal outbursts, yelling. I had to speak to him once when he was talking very loudly, telling him his volume might disturb some people. He seemed aware enough to realize this. But i believe this guy is taking his medication. He clearly has a home to go to and wears clean clothes, etc.

[Screenwriter]

But there are many mentally ill people who refuse to take medication, many drug addicted people who either refuse treatment, or do not have the wherewithal to get it: there are few programs to help the indigent.

I have a mentally ill cousin: schizophrenia. Hie sister spent 10 years seeking help for him. That's how long it took for him to get a visiting nurse to administer his medication weekly. He's in a nursing home now.

But the thousands of homeless people who are jointly mentally ill, alcoholics, and/or drug addicted, are legion. Most of the homeless are not simply ordinary people who don't have enough money to find apartments. Most have combinations of illnesses and because of the poor care and abuses that happened in institutions because there wasn't enough oversight or good workers due to poor pay, Reagan shut them down.

Now there's scattered and uneven care and not enough. I think some people CANNOT live on their own and need to be forced to take medication that will help them and forced into institutional care. This is where support institutions are valuable.

[Screenwriter]

The problem, however, is that institutional care was uneven and in the old days, people were treated inhumanely. Housed like cattle. Ignored. Not given proper medication so that they had lives, instead of existences. Given no paid work. Though there are some who are so sick, work is not an option.

But the people I see begging on street corners are not those people. They have healthy looking bodies. BUT, they do not want to live under a roof where they can't smoke, can't do drugs, can't drink. So their irrational choices are to live on the street, incredibly dangerous and deleterious, not have proper healthcare or housing, and to beg.

There is SO much wrong with this picture. PBS presented a fabulous documentary about healthcare for mentally ill people called, "The Right to Fail." 2019. There was a legal ruling about mentally ill people having the right to live "on their own," instead of in institutions.

And it showed, glaringly, that there are people who CANNOT. And how foolish the legal ruling was for these people. It is why we have the homeless problem that we do. There is no place now for these people. And they have co-morbidities because they refuse to take medication that will stabilize them, keep them off drugs, alcohol and have them live lives that are at least somewhat happy and stable.

The whole thing needs to be revisited legally and morally. It's all kinds of wrong.

[Asker]

"There was a legal ruling about mentally ill people having the right to live "on their own," instead of in institutions. And it showed, glaringly, that there are people who CANNOT." Okay, you seem to be suggesting that it can be okay to submit mentally ill people to asylum against their will since they cannot successfully live on their own.

[Screenwriter]

There are some who must live in assisted care. There are no "asylums" so to speak. People live in apartments with some privacy, they eat communally, are given medications they need. They have money to buy things from disability pay, some have family money too.. They have more freedoms than in the past and social workers and therapists aid them in their lives.

Someone who's hearing voices and hallucinating and can't think straight can't live "on their own." They need lots of help. That 2019 doc is on YouTube. Go watch it. It's an hour long. It's very sad. But at the end, there's some light in the tunnel. Ill people need a lot of structure and care. It's the same for severely physically ill people.

And let's face it. We all need help. Some, just more than others.

[IHaveRespawned]

I used to work in EMS. There were times a patient didn't exactly meet the requirements for a mental health hold, but their behavior was alarming to where a hold would have been appropriate. There were recent instances where people were hauled to jail as they were experiencing a medical emergency, and they died in jail custody. If someone is exhibiting alarming and bizarre behaviors to where there is a reasonable suspicion of safety issues to themselves or others, they should be committed involuntarily. l, at least to have an evaluation.

Our mental health system is absolutely shit now. Those admitted into a psychiatric facility often are heavily medicated, babysat, and released in a week with very minimal aftercare. It is alarming. Yet, jails and prisons have become the defacto psychiatric "hospitals".

[Stevepro68]

Unfortunately we have double whammies the mentally ill. Involuntary commitments actually have a very poor tract record for protection the patient or treatment outcomes. What has been lacking in the US has been the availability of inpatient voluntary psychiatric care. Many people need inpatient and want to do it yet there are no resources and no money for this. Politicians talk about involuntary commitments because it's like prisons that are politically easy to get the money for. The best treatment options voluntary inpatient gets no political support and no for-profit insurance support. So that is the real key that no one talks about. Because it is socially and polically inconvenient. People know they need help but being locked and forced into treatment rarely works.

[MemeSupreme]

no, that is dumb bc that "help" you talk about in psychiatric hospitals is often shitty and you can't just get rid of a disorder

like why would someone be permanently placed in one just bc they have an anxiety disorder lol

[Asker]

But it isn't always shitty. What about the times it is decent? And medication can help too.

[MemeSupreme]

meds don't always work and therapy doesn't either. takes a lot of time and effort. it's never straightforward. you can be fine for a period, then not for another.

even if they get "help," then they're just stuck there lol most people wouldn't accept that which would get in the way of that

[Asker]

Right, but sometimes giving people treatment does help. And that is the only way some people can improve.

[MemeSupreme]

not when you force it

[msc545]

There are no good solutions to this problem. Many types of mental illness are unlikely to resolve completely and people can wind up in hospitals literally for their entire lives. This is cruel and very expensive as well. On the other hand, if you do not treat people sometimes forcibly, they can wind up as being homeless and on the street and eventually die or become seriously injured as the result of their circumstances. This is particularly true in the United States where the economic system has absolutely no mercy on anyone who is not functioning well.

[Asker]

That is not true. Lots of people in the USA get disability. I know multiple people in their 40s who never work, they just collect disability.

[Iron_Man]

No those places are horrible. You just get worse and worse being in there did you ever see that movie silence of the lambs? How can you possibly rehabilitate yourself in a place like that? You can’t that’s where basically people are thrown away but kept alive, it’s an evil environment there’s no way you can rehabilitate yourself in any of those places

[CrazyDan82]

I have bipolar. I haven't had a manic or depressive episode in 16 years. Im medicated and get weekly therapy. I own my own house and I make $140k as an senior auditor at a pharmaceutical firm. Nobody I work with, and I've been with my company for almost 8 years and nobody knows I have a mental illness. Can somebody explain why I should be locked in an asylum?

[kissmyring]

That’s some fucked up shit bro. No one in their right mind is going to agree with you. Time to take you into the hospital.

[IHaveRespawned]

It isn't exactly fucked up. I used to work in EMS. There were times a patient was exhibiting erratic or bizarre behavior, yet they didn't exactly meet the criteria for a mental health hold. It is difficult to define "immediate threat". In many cases, the patient has to openly admit an intention to harm themselves or others. There needs to be some common sense to where if there is a reasonable suspicion of alarming behavior, the patient at a minimal can be involuntarily taken to be evaluated. There have also been instances of people experiencing a medical emergency being hauled off to jail where they die in jail custody. There needs to be a middle ground to this.

[kissmyring]

I don’t think the middle ground is anyone with a volatile diagnosis being held against their will

[Avicenna]

When you say „mentally ill“ people, what have they been diagnosed with? „Mentally ill“ covers a wide spectrum.

[exitseven]

They should be evaluated on a case by case basis judging them by their dangerousness to the public.

[Staximus]

If they are no threat to others or themselves then they should be free like anybody else

[Asker]

What if they constantly verbally and emotionally others?

[Asker]

verbally and emotionally abuse others.

[CrazyDan82]

Then they're a threat.

[Panthero80]

Why would they be confined if they pose no danger?

[Asker]

What if they constantly verbally and emotionally abuse others?

[Panthero80]

In this country (United States) we have free speech. The first amendment to the Constitution guarantees that the government can't imprison people whose speech is undesirable.

[Asker]

It is not imprisonment though. It is giving them help that they need in a mental facility because they have genuine psychological issues that prevent them from living peaceably with the rest of us. I am talking emotional abuse, harassment and/or intimidation. Moreover, there are tons of exceptions to "free speech": en.wikipedia.org/.../United_States_free_speech_exceptions

[Panthero80]

"Emotional abuse" is a broad category. If it were the case that people could be committed for harassment, half of the people on this website would be confined to mental hospitals.

[Asker]

Not really because the emotional abuse here is temporary and avoidable. You can actually block people on here, or avoid the website, and most people on here don't emotionally abuse you for an extended period of time. I'm talking extended emotional abuse for weeks or months, not just hours or days. There are some really crazy people out there who I think you could make a case belong in an asylum even if they are not beating people up.

[beefcakebradybatson]

Yes, if they can't care for their basic needs.

[qwerty2469]

This right here is why women shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[DrPepper12]

Does ANYONE include themselves?

[Asker]

Yes because if they do pose a threat to themselves you can legally take them away.

[DrPepper12]

Agreed.

[Simslover92]

Absolutely not.

[Anonymous]

Ah führer, you've arrived