Why Won't the Politicians Help Care for the Mentally Ill and Really Solve this?

[AlexanderA]

Two main hindrances in treating or institutionalizing the mentally ill:

1. Lack of money, or rather, lack of the willingness to pay more taxes to address the problem.

2. Civil liberties concerns. You can't involuntarily lock people up without a long and expensive "due process."

Furthermore, if you stigmatize mental illness by, say, denying people under treatment their gun rights, you create a disincentive for people to seek treatment.

 

[Cosmoline]

The "mentally ill" are a huge and mostly non-violent group. Part of the problem is that current laws don't differentiate between the merely depressed and the homicidal. If your corn flakes tell you to shoot kids, then you should be locked away for life. It's that segment of the mentally ill population that's at fault for the majority of these incidents. But it's extremely difficult to commit people.

The solution--keep it difficult for the suicidal to be committed. Suicide isn't even a crime, after all. Make it easier to have those who hear voices telling them to kill to be put away and kept away. Reinstitutionalization. Due process will still be there, but upon a showing that the person presents a threat TO OTHERS, not merely to himself, then he gets put in the category of heightened oversight. There are people running around on the streets now who shouldn't be near a knife, car, brick or anything let alone a firearm.

 

[velojym]

As I understand, most of the shooters were already under mandatory "care" along with whatever psychotropic drugs were in style at the time.

So... no, thanks.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Actually, I read recently that 30% of the differences in crime rates in neighboring states can be explained (read r-squared for you statistics folks) by differences in involuntary psych admission standards. Can't remember where though.

Regardless, it would be worth looking into this further. The money will need to come from somewhere though...

 

[velojym]

Gotta think *real* hard about accepting any sort of *involuntary* "admission". The people who tend to determine what constitutes a valid reason for such will likely be those same tyrants we're up against right now.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Gotta think *real* hard about accepting any sort of *involuntary* "admission". The people who tend to determine what constitutes a valid reason for such will likely be those same tyrants we're up against right now.

And, if you're involuntarily admitted, ever, even by mistake, you're never gonna pass a 4473 because that's one of the questions.

Yet clearly there are some people walking around in society who shouldn't be.

It's not an easy problem. Which is why "get rid of teh gunnnz!!!!!111!" is such an easy refrain. Trying to think through other issues (like mental health and privacy issues) is really tough.

 

[k_dawg]

Because this is not about reducing or preventing crime.

It is only about disarming lawful folks.

 

[AlexanderA]

Just wait until some psychiatric association defines a mere desire to own a gun as a "mental illness." That would be the gun-grabbers' perfect "catch-22." If you want one, you can't have one because by definition you're "mentally ill." To get a gun, you would have to prove that you really, honestly, don't want it. This is not that far-fetched, the way things are going.

 

[JohnBT]

"Just wait until some psychiatric association defines a mere desire to own a gun"

There is only one psychiatric association that matters, so I believe your fear that "some" association could or will redefine the terms is unfounded.

They've just finalized the DSM-V and it will be put into use in May iirc. There is a lon review procedure for changing the DSM.


"but upon a showing that the person presents a threat TO OTHERS"

That's the standard now, the problem has always been proving it when the person hasn't done anything yet.

John

 

[BSA1]

We have a huge problem with mental illness, and specifically the treatment of and the immediate intervention to treat the mentally ill who pose a threat to themselves or to others.

Please post links to support this statement.

Generally speaking, when the government stopped supporting the "mental hospitals" in the 60's and 70's, the treatment issue was pushed to state and family responsibility. Neither seems to be able to afford to address the issue on a private basis.

Institutionalization was eliminated do to widespread abuse of patients such as forced sterilization and electric shock.

Many insurance plans don't cover any meaningful treatment.

What facts do you have to support this across the board statement? You are ignoring that free services are available.

My point is that these guys are having complete breakdowns where they are telling their psychiatrists they are thinking about killing people, their parents are seeing that things are getting really bad, and nobody does anything proactive to step in and get them immediate help and to secure them. Nothing happens to stop it and these mentally ill people finally snap and act.

What research and facts do you have to support this statement? A key aspect of medical treatment is confidentially between the Doctor and Patient. Suppose someone comes up some research that persons that commit violent crimes have a certain chemical imbalance and you also have that same imbalance. Are you likely to seek treatment knowing your medical condition will be reported to the Federal Government and you will lose your 2A rights?

Perhaps the better question would be why aren't we (not just politcians ) doing more to proactively help people who are obviously mentally ill and dangerous?

I don't think it's the federal government or politicians job to treat mentally ill people. I have known people who when undergoing a very stressful time such as getting a divorce verbalize statements of how worthless they feel and would be better off dead. Or they are angry because their spouse cheated on them, taking the kids, house, etc. Yet after time has passed these feelings go away without violence. But since some divorces do end in violence should everyone that is going a divorce be compelled by the Court to undergo psych evaluation and treatment?

I don't think it's the federal government or politicians job to treat mentally ill people.

Exactly. How will a program be started? By starting in public schools teaching children to report their parents and other adults, a toll fee national hotline where you can report anyone you are mad at, mandatory arrests and forced hospitalization?

The "mentally ill" are a huge and mostly non-violent group.

A well-reasoned accurate statement.

 

[gc70]

In the past, people with mental illness were incarcerated in psychiatric facilities. Then our society decided to deinstitutionalize and 'mainstream' people with mental disorders. But we did not really end incarceration. Today, people with mental illness are too often incarcerated in prisons, after they have caused harm to society.

The argument that mental illness is too expensive an issue to address is partially inaccurate because we are already paying for the incarceration and treatment of those in our prison system.

This article dated 12/23/2012 reports that a third of inmates in New York City jails have "some level of mental illness." The article reports that Mayor Bloomberg, who is all for restrictions on gun rights, announced an initiative to "get people with mental illness out of jail ..."

Bloomberg wants guns off the streets, but nuts on the streets.

 

[goldie]

There was a large mental facility for years on long island called pilgrim state, which closed a few years ago, is now abandoned, & is home to day laborers who break in, or tunnel in & live in there.theres your mental heath system at work on long island....

 

[Robert]

Mental illness is absolutely the core issue. But how to combat that issue is outside the scope of THR.