Should mental defectives be identified?

[JCF]

Anyone who disagrees with me is mentally defective.

Did a little research before committing.

Guilty as charged.

Take me away.

 

[RavenVT100]

CFriesen and others:

I posited this question on the other thread. Since only one person answered and wasn't able to help me out, I'll ask it again.

What about the numerous states that prohibit people who have voluntarily, without being involved with a court, "sought treatment," such as the guy with insomnia who is on ambien or some such, or the mother with temporary, postpartum depression?

 

[JCF]

What about the numerous states that prohibit people who have voluntarily, without being involved with a court, "sought treatment," such as the guy with insomnia who is on ambien or some such, or the mother with temporary, postpartum depression?

What about it?

What state prohibits firearms ownership to persons who have sought treatment for insomnia, etc?

Insomnia is extremely different from post-partum depression, which can vary dramatically in duration. Post-partum depression can lead to involuntary hospitalization due to imminent danger to self and child, removal of children from the home (in circumstances where no supports are available to ensure safety), incarceration (in situations where a mother kills a child and the law and order folk now decide that PPD is non-existent) and death (where mom kills herself).

As I've repeatedly posted in another thread, the criteria forwarded for the purpose of firearms restriction is NOT a general diagnosis of a mental health disorder. It is the same general criteria that is used to determine necessity of involuntary hospitalization: an individual diagnosed with uncontrolled (or persistent transient uncontrollability of) schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, or depressive disorder, and accompanying and compelling acts and/or expressions of imminent risk of causing greivous physical injury or death to themselves or another person.

Beyond this, adjudication of mental defect is an adversarial process. There is no less protection against nebulous imposition of diagnosis than there is against wrongful conviction of criminal activity.

 

[Mumwaldee]

"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." Just like all these other laws chipping away at our rights, this would be another journey down the path of infringing on one group's rights so another group could feel safer.

I assume you work in the mental health field CFriesen, so you know that the chemists and doctors don't really know what effect most of the medicines prescribed for mental illness really do and what effects they have on the brain. Most of the time it's "try this, or that or try all this together" to see what balance will "work" for the individual.

In our highly litigious society what doctor isn't going to err on the side of safety and his own financial interest when asked if citizen X is "safe" to own firearms and "could you please sign right here" to show responsibility.

 

[Geister]

Sex offenders are cataloged because they have already committed a crime. Putting in records of people who have had mental treatments in the past into NICS is only doing so because they MIGHT be violent. There's no provision in the proposed bills that would limit it to people who've only committed a violent crime, i.e. sex offenders.

I'd rather risk a handful of nutcases who buy a gun to kill rather than give the government more and more power that it does not need. Nutcases will find a way to kill if that is what they want to do. More than likely the mental information will simply keep honest, non-violent citizens from purchasing firearms.

Let's stop punishing people before they've done something.

 

[JCF]

"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." Just like all these other laws chipping away at our rights, this would be another journey down the path of infringing on one group's rights so another group could feel safer.

Exactly the position posited by those seeking tighter restrictions on firearms, and those seeking to limit the lawful availability of firearms to persons undeserving of them. Anti-gun advocates do not have dominion over irrationality; there is plenty of it in the pro-gun camp. The fear expressed continually by persons such as yourself is no more based in reality than much of the specious "evidence" presented in favor of gun control. It is emotive, potentiative, and hypothetical rhetoric. People do not get committed to state mental hospitals for insomnia, they do not get sentenced to prison for homosexual contact, kids do not bring "machine guns" to school, etc., etc., etc. Yes, these are hypothetical potentialities in certain jurisdictions, they may have happened somewhere once or twice, and they could be made to happen under certain precise conditions; but in terms of becoming a "problem", they are about as realistic as the probability that Bruce Willis will be tapped by the government to blow up a meteor on a collision course with the earth. It is fiction.

I assume you work in the mental health field CFriesen

I work collateral to it.

so you know that the chemists and doctors don't really know what effect most of the medicines prescribed for mental illness really do and what effects they have on the brain.

Nonsense. The impact that any given psychotropic medication will have on the brain is as precise as any other medication. The impact that it will have one's BEHAVIOR is less established. Much in the way that we have limited knowledge as to how well and how long seizure medication, analgesics, antibiotics, etc. will work on any given condition.

Most of the time it's "try this, or that or try all this together" to see what balance will "work" for the individual.

Yes, quite frequently it is.

- Have you ever met anyone with a serious medical condition such as diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, etc.?

- Have you ever discussed with them how many different medications they are on, and have been on throughout the course of their treatment?

- Have you ever discussed with them how many times these medications have been adjusted?

- Have you ever spoken to someone with cancer or heart disease and discussed with them how their medication makes them feel?

- Have you ever heard the term "polypharmacy"? Are you aware of what the implications of this situation are to the field of medicine, and to the likelihood of succesful treatment of illness?

- Are you aware of the fact that studies have found, variably, that up to 30% of all patients with serious health (not mental health) diagnoses are prescribed multiple medications (6+ / a condition of polypharmacy) by their doctors to the extent that it is a detriment to their prognosis?

Do you think you will still go to your doctor?

The argument you, and others, are making, and have made, about medication and psychiatry, is convenient to your position; it is specious and based in PURE ignorance.

In our highly litigious society what doctor isn't going to err on the side of safety and his own financial interest when asked if citizen X is "safe" to own firearms and "could you please sign right here" to show responsibility.

Your understanding of the system is becoming increasingly apparent. Doctors do not get sued by "society" in the absence of a diagnosis or finding of danger.

They get sued by THE INDIVIDUAL for "erring on the side of safety" when there was no compelling and demonstrable evidentiary basis to do so.

 

[JCF]

Sex offenders are cataloged because they have already committed a crime.

But, but... the Nazis did it.

Putting in records of people who have had mental treatments in the past into NICS is only doing so because they MIGHT be violent. There's no provision in the proposed bills that would limit it to people who've only committed a violent crime, i.e. sex offenders.

Let's stop punishing people before they've done something.

You're okay with mentally retarded people purchasing firearms then?

 

[romma]

They'll just tell us we're all crazy... Oh wait, they've already been doing that.

 

[JCF]

They'll just tell us we're all crazy... Oh wait, they've already been doing that.

Who? When?

 

[MrDig]

Sick and F%&#ing Tired

How do you define "Mental Defective", "Crazy", "Insane", "Incompetent"!!!
You post this poll as though everybody knows what "Crazy" means. This is not a simplistic, black and white, either or, issue.
Here are the questions no one seems to experess. My responses are in blue.

1:Yes or No
Do people Court Ordered for Mental Health Assesments need to be reported to the NICS? NO, The results of the assesment are at issue

2:Yes or No
Should persons ordered to Outpatient Treatment but NOT ordered to Inpatient Treatment be reported to NICS? Yes, due to the Courts involvement in the assesment process, ALL persons ordered to Inpatient treatment need to be reported.

3:Yes or No
Does the DOJ need to Clarify,and set tighter standards for the Definition of Mentally Incompetant? Yes

4:Yes or No
Do People who Volunteer to get Mental Health Treatment need to be reported? No, This would be a clear violation of HIPPA

5:Yes or No
Do persons Court Ordered for Alcohol and or Chemical Dependancy treatment need to be Reported to the NICS. Yes, Due to the Courts involvment after a period of predetermined Sobriety the person can have the report removed from their record

6:Yes or No
People who Volunteer for Alcohol and or Chemical Dependency treatment need to be reported to the NICS No, Again HIPPA applies and the Courts are not involved.

Answer these and then a thoughtful discussion can be brought about.

 

[F4GIB]

"Adjudication" is no guarantee of anything. Certainly not of Liberty.

Judges can be chosen and courts implemented to enforce ANY "laws" those in power desire to enforce. The federal government today has dozens of non-Article III courts staffed by mere government employees.

The Nazis were very law conscious. They tried to do their evil work with the full majesty of the law behind it. If you don't know you're history, look here.

"The defendants in this case were ... German jurists and lawyers. [Some] had been officials of the Reich Ministry of Justice, the others were prosecutors and judges of the Special Courts and People's Courts of Nazi Germany. They were—amongst other charges—held responsible for implementing and furthering the Nazi "racial purity" program through the eugenic and racial laws." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judges'_Trial

I "visited" Dachau when I was ten years-old, it made a BIG impression on me. Those of you who think the US Congress is not capable of any bit of despotism that seems politically correct at the moment, haven't read much history. Ask Mr. Korematsu.

 

[Geister]

CFriesen, what does this have to do about Nazis? I never said anything about Nazis. What I said is you cannot compare sex offenders to mental patients with no violent criminal records.

The fear expressed continually by persons such as yourself is no more based in reality than much of the specious "evidence" presented in favor of gun control. It is emotive, potentiative, and hypothetical rhetoric.

This is exactly what you are displaying by being afraid that some nutjob is going to purchase a firearm to kill you. Guess what? He can kill you plenty of other ways if he wanted to.

The Virginia government just made an executive order that people like Cho cannot purchase firearms in Virgina. Maybe you should move there now since he just made it sooooo much safer now. Hahahaha.

The argument you, and others, are making, and have made, about medication and psychiatry, is convenient to your position; it is specious and based in PURE ignorance.

Wow, you just brought out the i-bomb: ignorance! Isn't that Michael Jackson's favorite word? "That's ignorance!" You're starting to slip up by having to resort to labelling and name calling.

 

[Geister]

ALL persons ordered to Inpatient treatment need to be reported.

A lot of these people ordered for inpatient treatment were not violent....

 

[JCF]

"Adjudication" is no guarantee of anything. Certainly not of Liberty.

*SIGH*

So what components of our systems of social normativity that are based upon the processes of adjudication do we dispense with? All of them? Civil Court System? Legislative Branch? Criminal Justice?

Or just the ones deemed objectionable by a THR Poll Majority???

 

[Geister]

Or just the ones deemed objectionable by a THR Poll Majority???

Since the majority of THR seem to understand the Constitution and Bill of Rights much better than most of those currently in the government, I don't see how this would be an issue.

 

[pcosmar]

Mental Health ?

Here is a little information regarding the "Psychiatric Profession",and some of what the future may bring.
http://www.familyrightsassociation.com/bin/white_papers-articles/drugging_our_children/

As we navigate our way into the 21st century, there is an ominous trend that, strangely, doesn't seem to concern people as much as it should: Millions of children are now taking psychotropic drugs. And they're not doing it illegally, but by prescription. In fact, the medical and educational establishments are conducting a skyrocketing campaign to get kids, and their parents, to “just say yes” to brain-altering pharmaceuticals, with the drug of choice being Ritalin. In 1970, when approximately 150,000 students were on Ritalin, America was alarmed enough to get the Drug Enforcement Agency to classify Ritalin and other amphetamine-type drugs as Class II substances, a category that includes cocaine and one that indicates significant risk of abuse. Despite this apparent safeguard, the number of children taking psychiatric stimulants today has risen over 40-fold; current estimates are that between 6 and 7 million children are taking them. The American Academy of Pediatrics estimates that as many as 3.8 million school children, mostly boys, are currently diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and that at least a million children take Ritalin, a figure that many regard as a gross underestimate. And it is not just schoolchildren who are being dosed with psychotropics: Even preschoolers—those aged 2 to 4—experienced a tripling of such prescriptions in a recent five-year period.[ii]

Exactly why is all this juvenile pill-popping a problem? Well, for one thing, Ritalin is a drug that has a more potent effect on the brain than cocaine.[iii] And we’re supposed to be a country that eschews the use of such mind-altering substances, certainly for children. For another, Ritalin’s side effects can range from unwelcome personality changes to cardiovascular problems to death. Plus there’s the very real issue of whether the “diseases” for which this powerful medicine is prescribed are in fact real diseases at all.

The problem becomes further complicated when you consider that, in addition to the Ritalin explosion, increasing numbers of children are also being prescribed antidepressants, and that these are drugs originally designed and tested for adults. (A fact not generally publicized is that it’s legal to prescribe drugs “off label,” that is, for conditions or populations that they weren’t originally designed for.) So in 1996, over 700,000 children and adolescents were taking Prozac and similar antidepressants in the SSRI group, an 80-percent increase from just two years earlier. It’s not that the SSRI’s have been proven effective in battling childhood and adolescent depression. They haven’t.[iv] Nevertheless, today, the number of these prescriptions has surpassed one million. Psychiatrist Peter Breggin estimates that, each year, 10 percent of the school-age population will take one or more psychiatric drugs.[v] Some children are prescribed several at once. And the phenomenon continues to grow despite disturbing evidence of severe drug-induced personality changes, manic reactions, and psychotic behavior.

http://www.naturalchoice.net/articles/ritalin.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/your_govt/your_government49.htm
http://www.ritalindeath.com/

 

[F4GIB]

CFriesen, MDig, Mike Haas, Bartholomew Roberts, and others. You purport to know all about both the mental health system and the legal system. May I request that you list your qualifications so we can evaluate your comments?

 

[MrDig]

Geister, Violent or not they were Court Ordered to treatment. The courts involvment states that these persons are unable to determine their own mental health. Thus they are in fact Metally Ill

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Results

The psych "sciences" aren't.

Interesting.

Particularly in light of the fact that the “psych sciences” encompass a multidisciplinary treatment approach to dysfunction; medicine, pharmacy, counseling, social work, etc.

It's an elite club of "doctors" with delusions of adequacy

“Doctors” with "delusions of adequacy"?

I’m fascinated. Explain this to me if you would.

Rather than argue the academics of this, or regale you with anecdotes, I will simply point to results:

More than forty years of "improving" our education system.

If you believe that education in this country has improved at all in the last forty years, then I'm afraid we really won't make any progress in a discussion.

I assert that education in America has been in a long-term slide for decades, and that this slide is directly a consequence of psych meddling to fast-track socialism into our society.

You may believe differently.

My direct experiences tend to support this view. Unfortunately, my anecdotes don't constitute your data.

Some years ago, there was a fellow who wrote on this. He was, himself, a psychiatrist. Thomas Szasz wrote The Myth Of Mental Illness and The Manufacture Of Madness.

Oh, look, he's still out there! www.szasz.com has his stuff.

Read his stuff. Draw your own conclusions.

 

[JCF]

You're starting to slip up by having to resort to labelling and name calling.

Describing your argument as based in ignorance isn't name-calling Geister.

Thanks anyway.

 

[MrDig]

Not claiming to be an expert (ex=has been / spert=drip under pressure) Asking questions that no one seems to ask. My responses are my opinions.
I am in fact currently working in a mental health facility and have over 8 years experience working in the field. No degree, just on the job experience.

 

[Geister]

Geister, Violent or not they were Court Ordered to treatment. The courts involvment states that these persons are unable to determine their own mental health. Thus they are in fact Metally Ill

ONCE AGAIN, what does this have to do with someone using a firearm with the intent to kill? Are you suggesting that EVERYONE who has been mentally ill should be judged as someone who will purchase a firearm with the intent to kill?

 

[Geister]

Describing your argument as based in ignorance isn't name-calling Geister.

Yes it is. You realized that all your counterarguments can be easily retorted so now you're just content with labelling everyone and their arguments.

 

[MrDig]

No I am suggesting that COURT INVOLVMENT is the predetermining Factor. The Court itself does not determine Mental Health an Assesment outside of the Court System is appointed to do the assesment the Reports back to the Court. Should you be Adjuducated to Inpatient or Outpatient Treatment then the DOJ should be notified.

 

[Geister]

No I am suggesting that COURT INVOLVMENT

And ONCE AGAIN what does this have to do with someone using a firearm with the intent to kill? Just because the court is involved doesn't mean any sort of act of violent occurred or will occur.