Re: Gingrich self destructs -- again

El Castor wrote:
Islander <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

El Castor wrote:
Islander <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

El Castor wrote:
Islander <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

El Castor wrote:
Islander <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/22/gingrich-liberalism-vatech/

Gingrich Blames Virginia Tech Tragedy On Liberalism

By golly! Gingrich was EXACTLY right! He would sure make a fine
president!

From the front page of our own left wing San Francisco Chronicle of
two days ago -- an article about the difficulty of treating the
mentally ill, specifically in connection with the Virginia Tech case.


"PATIENTS' RIGHTS VS. PUBLIC SAFETY
Virginia Tech shootings highlight how mental health laws that prohibit
forced treatment make it difficult to intervene
Victoria Colliver, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, April 22, 2007
<Snip>
"Being completely and absolutely overcome with illness -- walking
around and thinking you're on Mars and that everyone is a Venusian --
is not enough to get someone into treatment. They have to be in
physical danger at the time," said Jonathan Stanley, assistant
director of the Treatment Advocacy Center, a national group based in
Arlington, Va., that supports forced treatment.

That standard often prevents authorities from stepping in until after
something terrible has happened. "A person has to commit a crime --
there has to be blood on the ground -- before we can act," said
Randall Hagar, director of governmental relations for the California
Psychiatric Association. "That's a pretty darn high bar." Hagar said
the requirement of imminent danger is too strict because people are
generally being observed for a short period of time."The person who
can hold it together for 20 minutes while they're being interviewed by
a police officer on a street corner may be highly dangerous," he said,
"but they can evade detention."

As a mother, Gambs said she was mystified by a system that encouraged
her to allow her adult son to become homeless and ultimately jailed
before he could be hospitalized against his will. She said police
officers actually encouraged her to let her son live on the streets in
hopes he would be arrested and get help."

I've been saying the same thing for a week. (-8

And you've been wrong for a week! There are alternatives to commitment as it was practiced before Reagan closed the warehouses and denied funding for mental health programs. You cannot have it both ways. Either commit them or treat them. Reagan shut down both.
Oh quit trying to blame it on Reagan. Did you read what I posted? Many
many schizophrenics can't be treated voluntarily. They will not commit
themselves voluntarily, and they will not self medicate.

Reagan was wrong to believe that they would, just as you are wrong to
believe the same thing. That's something you and Reagan have in
common. I differ with both of you. In any event, these issues are
governed by state laws and federal court decisions. Reagan was the
governor of one of fifty states. You can't blame Virginia 30 years
later on him. Now go back and read what I posted. Mentally ill
schizophrenics will not voluntarily commit themselves, and they will
not take their medications. All the money in the world won't make them
do it. Even one of the most left wing newspapers in the country admits
it. That is the end of the line until people like you back off your
civil liberty argument -- an argument that has been proven not to
work.

Change the law so that Schizophrenics can be required to take their
medications, and I will gladly pay for it. Where do you stand on
requiring schizophrenics to take their medication? That's what it all
comes down to. Will you or won't you support requiring them to take
their medications? Say yes, and we are in agreement. No -- and we will
never agree.

The issue is one of providing the resources to allow due process to work. Refusing to take medication is symptomatic of several mental illnesses. But, we cannot automatically warehouse them either. We cannot have abusive husbands putting their wives in asylums or any of the other abuses that used to exist. What is needed is treatment and careful monitoring by professionals outside the institutions so that the interests of the patient are considered before commitment. That takes money and those programs have been gutted.

If you are willing to help pay for that rather than blaming the liberals or the ACLU, we are in agreement.
Utter nonsense. That kind of thinking is what is wrong with the
current system. Once again:

"A person has to commit a crime --
there has to be blood on the ground -- before we can act," said
Randall Hagar, director of governmental relations for the California
Psychiatric Association. "That's a pretty darn high bar."

"Being completely and absolutely overcome with illness -- walking
around and thinking you're on Mars and that everyone is a Venusian --
is not enough to get someone into treatment. They have to be in
physical danger at the time," said Jonathan Stanley, assistant
director of the Treatment Advocacy Center, a national group based in
Arlington, Va., that supports forced treatment.

The law needs to be changed. Don't want to change it? Ok with me, but
don't complain when a maniac kills 32 people, or some loon dies of
pneumonia in the gutter. Me? I'll just step over them on the sidewalk
and hope I'm not one of the 32.

Jeff

OK, if you were in charge of this problem, how would you solve it? There are degrees of mental illness. How would you determine who is to be committed and who should be treated in the community? The extreme cases are easy. Certainly you would not treat everyone in the same way. How would you protect those who are under medication and who are potentially productive members of the community?

I'm not qualified to answer that question in detail, however with
regard to schizophrenics, an unwillingness to cooperate with care
givers combined with a demonstrated inability to self medicate should
be enough. That criteria should get almost all homeless schizophrenics
off the streets and into institutions.


But, the devil is in the details. Who determines if they are unwilling and to what extent they are unwilling? Who are the qualified care givers? Under what circumstances might they be released again?

I don't think that it is as simple as you imply and without effective public mental health programs in place, I don't see how such decisions might be made.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Gingrich self destructs -- again
    ... is not enough to get someone into treatment. ... Either commit them or treat them. ... many schizophrenics can't be treated voluntarily. ... medications, and I will gladly pay for it. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Gingrich self destructs -- again
    ... Gingrich Blames Virginia Tech Tragedy On Liberalism ... mentally ill, specifically in connection with the Virginia Tech case. ... is not enough to get someone into treatment. ... Either commit them or treat them. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Gingrich self destructs -- again
    ... Gingrich Blames Virginia Tech Tragedy On Liberalism ... mentally ill, specifically in connection with the Virginia Tech case. ... is not enough to get someone into treatment. ... Either commit them or treat them. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Gingrich self destructs -- again
    ... Gingrich Blames Virginia Tech Tragedy On Liberalism ... mentally ill, specifically in connection with the Virginia Tech case. ... is not enough to get someone into treatment. ... Either commit them or treat them. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Gingrich self destructs -- again
    ... Gingrich Blames Virginia Tech Tragedy On Liberalism ... is not enough to get someone into treatment. ... Either commit them or treat them. ... medications, and I will gladly pay for it. ...
    (soc.retirement)