H
HaoZi
Guest
When it's a minor, yes, I believe CPS gets involved. But we know how that goes.
Psychotic? Schizophrenic? Both?
- Thread starter gcvmom
- Start date
Marguerite
Active Member
I can't speak for the US, but I remember what my friend went through to get her husband physically into a locked psychiatric ward. First they had to meet up with him long enough to evaluate him (and he was not cooperative) and then, IF they were able to get enough justification to certify him, they had to physically restrain him and get him there. And all this, while he was making very public and very specific threats ("I am going to kill you all; I will find your car and put a bomb in it to blow you up"). Even then, it took months before her husband was finally getting help.
As I said - human rights often clashes on this issue. You have, on one hand, the right to be safe. And on the other hand, the individual has the right to refuse treatment.
Someone who is psychotic should not, in my opinion, have full rights to refuse treatment while they are psychotic. Especially not if they are demonstrably a danger to themselves or others. But how do you prove that the person you just dragged off and locked up for treatment, was actually having a psychotic episode? it is too easy to get it wrong.
We had a few cases here in Australia, linked to our immigration department. In both cases a woman who was unable to make herself understood, was deported (or placed ready for deportation) despite being an Australian citizen. One woman, Cornelia Rau, was actually having a psychotic break I believe which led to her incarceration in a detention centre (with no medical treatment). She was there a long time. The other woman was recovering from a car accident, and spent a couple of years out of the country until she was well enough to say, "Why am I here?"
Authorities remember such cases and are increasingly reluctant to risk infringing individual human rights.
Marg
As I said - human rights often clashes on this issue. You have, on one hand, the right to be safe. And on the other hand, the individual has the right to refuse treatment.
Someone who is psychotic should not, in my opinion, have full rights to refuse treatment while they are psychotic. Especially not if they are demonstrably a danger to themselves or others. But how do you prove that the person you just dragged off and locked up for treatment, was actually having a psychotic episode? it is too easy to get it wrong.
We had a few cases here in Australia, linked to our immigration department. In both cases a woman who was unable to make herself understood, was deported (or placed ready for deportation) despite being an Australian citizen. One woman, Cornelia Rau, was actually having a psychotic break I believe which led to her incarceration in a detention centre (with no medical treatment). She was there a long time. The other woman was recovering from a car accident, and spent a couple of years out of the country until she was well enough to say, "Why am I here?"
Authorities remember such cases and are increasingly reluctant to risk infringing individual human rights.
Marg
I think Marg really nailed it - it's 2 very opposite rights clashing head-on: the right to be safe versus the right to refuse treatment. If you're diabetic, you have the right to refuse tx. If you're depressed, you have the right to refuse tx. But... if you become dangerous, you lose the right to refuse... at least until you're not dangerous anymore, and then you can refuse again. My head has been going around and around in circles over this. It is such a horrible tragedy, for the victims as well as the shooter - it just bites all the way around. There has to be (or *should* be) a way to protect the public, but I'm not sure it can be done without trampling severely on the rights of the mentally ill.
The really sad thing is that once people realize there was nothing truly political behind this (beyond this poor man's distorted perception of whatever the heck his particular vision of reality is), I think it will just reinforce the stigma of mental illness. I don't think there will be any empathy - I'm not excusing what he did, but I cannot help but wonder if there were some magical system in place that guaranteed him appropriate diagnosis and treatment, supervised if necessary, this could have been avoided.
The really sad thing is that once people realize there was nothing truly political behind this (beyond this poor man's distorted perception of whatever the heck his particular vision of reality is), I think it will just reinforce the stigma of mental illness. I don't think there will be any empathy - I'm not excusing what he did, but I cannot help but wonder if there were some magical system in place that guaranteed him appropriate diagnosis and treatment, supervised if necessary, this could have been avoided.
gcvmom
Here we go again!
My sentiments exactly.
Marguerite
Active Member
Sadly, I think you are right. The same thing happened after Port Arthur when it was found that the gunman was mentally ill. There were also claims he had Asperger's with implications that all Aspies could be just as dangerous. It really set back autism understanding in Australia quite a bit. And for the record, I'm not so sure that the Tasmanian gunman is Aspie. What I do know - he will never be released.
Marg
Mr. Seaver, I do agree (see his article below) Although Mr. Seaver makes many good points he was obviously willing to get help for himself. In addition to the need for proactive services for mental health there does need to be something done to address the issue of those over the legal age who are refusing treatment and services. It is very complex and heartbreaking all the way around .[FONT="]
[/FONT][FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Maine Voices: Where was mental health crisis care before Tucson tragedy happened?[/FONT]
[FONT="]Someone who found help in that city says it was available, but apparently Jared Loughner missed his chance at it.[/FONT]
[FONT="]By RANDY SEAVER[/FONT]
[FONT="]ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Randy Seaver[/FONT][FONT="] of Biddeford is married and the stepfather of two boys. He works as a communications consultant.[/FONT]
[FONT="]BIDDEFORD The horrific event that transpired in Tucson on Saturday has inspired more than ample discussion regarding the tone and spirit of our nation's political discourse.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Despite all the fervent commentary, there is one piece of this puzzle that remains largely glossed over, however.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
And this is where it gets a bit personal. When I was 22, I was living in Tucson and attending college part-time. Just like Jared Loughner, I was removed from school for many of the same reasons.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
But I got lucky. I ended up at the Southern Arizona Mental Health Center (SAMHC) and spent the next several weeks there as an inpatient client.[/FONT][FONT="] I did not have insurance. I did not have any assets or even a job. My family was in Maine, thousands of miles away.[/FONT][FONT="] So, my ability to receive life-saving treatment and long-term support services was funded primarily on the back of the Arizona taxpayer.
[/FONT] [FONT="]Nearly a quarter century later, I like to think that investment has, so far, paid significant dividends. But I can assure you, it was a long-term and risky investment.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
Make no mistake. Mr. Loughner committed horrific, criminal acts that warrant the full weight of justice. But if society expects and demands justice, we must also recognize that there is a very deep and painful cost associated with scaling down or the elimination of community-based mental health services and treatment options.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
According to its web site, SAMHC was officially established in 1962 as a state-owned and operated outpatient mental health facility under the aegis of the Arizona State Hospital.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The campus-style facility, then located at the intersection of Campbell Avenue and 6th Street, was purchased through legislative appropriation.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
Nearly 50 years after its founding, SAMHC continues to provide crisis behavioral health services to the entire community, regardless of ability to pay, insurance status or age.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
As of this writing, it is unclear whether Loughner attempted to access those services or if he or members of his family made any attempt to deal with his now-obvious illness.[/FONT]
[FONT="]What is clearly known, however, is the commentary our society freely tosses around when describing mental illness.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
Unfortunately, the terms "sicko" "whack-job" and "nut case" are apparently acceptable on social media outlets, reader comment pages and even in the so-called mainstream media.[/FONT][FONT="] Yet, we wonder with righteous indignation why those affected by mental illness are reluctant to seek services or get help before their illness manifests itself into a deadly outcome.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
If I were dealing with testicular cancer, I could expect to be described as a "hero" or as a "survivor." I am praised for my courage to acknowledge my illness and for my willingness to fight it tooth and nail with all available resources. Heck, you might even put a bumper sticker on your car, wear a pink bracelet or post something supportive on your Facebook page.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
But what if I tell you I have a diagnosed mental illness; an illness that affects me every day; an insidious, almost-invisible illness for which there is no cure? I get some nervous head nods or even some encouragement in the form of: "pull yourself up by your bootstraps, try positive thinking, you should appreciate things more."[/FONT]
[FONT="]
Well-intentioned, perhaps, but the stigma and its costs are clear. Though we have made much progress, I can assure you that we have a long, long way to go.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
Only because I was able to access services and am willing to deal every day with my disease am I able to do things now that I once thought impossible: hold a job, enjoy a wonderful marriage, own a home and even hold a driver's license.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
So, some may choose to focus on the debate regarding our nation's political rhetoric. But whether we're talking about John Hinckley, Mark Chapman or the more recent example of Jared Loughner, one thing we should all be able to recognize is that mental illness can be a fatal illness and if left untreated, its costs are overwhelming.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
According to the Centers for Disease Control, one of every five Americans suffers from some form of mental illness.
[/FONT] [FONT="]I hope you agree with me that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Maine Voices: Where was mental health crisis care before Tucson tragedy happened?[/FONT]
[FONT="]Someone who found help in that city says it was available, but apparently Jared Loughner missed his chance at it.[/FONT]
[FONT="]By RANDY SEAVER[/FONT]
[FONT="]ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Randy Seaver[/FONT][FONT="] of Biddeford is married and the stepfather of two boys. He works as a communications consultant.[/FONT]
[FONT="]BIDDEFORD The horrific event that transpired in Tucson on Saturday has inspired more than ample discussion regarding the tone and spirit of our nation's political discourse.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Despite all the fervent commentary, there is one piece of this puzzle that remains largely glossed over, however.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
And this is where it gets a bit personal. When I was 22, I was living in Tucson and attending college part-time. Just like Jared Loughner, I was removed from school for many of the same reasons.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
But I got lucky. I ended up at the Southern Arizona Mental Health Center (SAMHC) and spent the next several weeks there as an inpatient client.[/FONT][FONT="] I did not have insurance. I did not have any assets or even a job. My family was in Maine, thousands of miles away.[/FONT][FONT="] So, my ability to receive life-saving treatment and long-term support services was funded primarily on the back of the Arizona taxpayer.
[/FONT] [FONT="]Nearly a quarter century later, I like to think that investment has, so far, paid significant dividends. But I can assure you, it was a long-term and risky investment.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
Make no mistake. Mr. Loughner committed horrific, criminal acts that warrant the full weight of justice. But if society expects and demands justice, we must also recognize that there is a very deep and painful cost associated with scaling down or the elimination of community-based mental health services and treatment options.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
According to its web site, SAMHC was officially established in 1962 as a state-owned and operated outpatient mental health facility under the aegis of the Arizona State Hospital.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The campus-style facility, then located at the intersection of Campbell Avenue and 6th Street, was purchased through legislative appropriation.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
Nearly 50 years after its founding, SAMHC continues to provide crisis behavioral health services to the entire community, regardless of ability to pay, insurance status or age.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
As of this writing, it is unclear whether Loughner attempted to access those services or if he or members of his family made any attempt to deal with his now-obvious illness.[/FONT]
[FONT="]What is clearly known, however, is the commentary our society freely tosses around when describing mental illness.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
Unfortunately, the terms "sicko" "whack-job" and "nut case" are apparently acceptable on social media outlets, reader comment pages and even in the so-called mainstream media.[/FONT][FONT="] Yet, we wonder with righteous indignation why those affected by mental illness are reluctant to seek services or get help before their illness manifests itself into a deadly outcome.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
If I were dealing with testicular cancer, I could expect to be described as a "hero" or as a "survivor." I am praised for my courage to acknowledge my illness and for my willingness to fight it tooth and nail with all available resources. Heck, you might even put a bumper sticker on your car, wear a pink bracelet or post something supportive on your Facebook page.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
But what if I tell you I have a diagnosed mental illness; an illness that affects me every day; an insidious, almost-invisible illness for which there is no cure? I get some nervous head nods or even some encouragement in the form of: "pull yourself up by your bootstraps, try positive thinking, you should appreciate things more."[/FONT]
[FONT="]
Well-intentioned, perhaps, but the stigma and its costs are clear. Though we have made much progress, I can assure you that we have a long, long way to go.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
Only because I was able to access services and am willing to deal every day with my disease am I able to do things now that I once thought impossible: hold a job, enjoy a wonderful marriage, own a home and even hold a driver's license.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
So, some may choose to focus on the debate regarding our nation's political rhetoric. But whether we're talking about John Hinckley, Mark Chapman or the more recent example of Jared Loughner, one thing we should all be able to recognize is that mental illness can be a fatal illness and if left untreated, its costs are overwhelming.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
According to the Centers for Disease Control, one of every five Americans suffers from some form of mental illness.
[/FONT] [FONT="]I hope you agree with me that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.[/FONT]
TerryJ2
Well-Known Member
Here is another good essay, this one from the point of view of teachers.
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/10/opinion-educators-can-help-prevent-future-giffords-tragedies/
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/10/opinion-educators-can-help-prevent-future-giffords-tragedies/
TerryJ2
Well-Known Member
Ahh, and now, finally, the first story about the family. Dysfunctional, at best. Sigh. All so very sad.
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/11/neighbor-jared-loughners-parents-are-hurting/
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/11/neighbor-jared-loughners-parents-are-hurting/
tiredmommy
Well-Known Member
Terry- The dysfunction/isolation may have come about because they felt rejected by their friends, family & neighbors as it became more apparent they had a difficult child. My heart breaks for his parents.
R
runawaybunny
Guest
Another point of view:
Crazy Talk
We're too quick to use "mental illness" as an explanation for violence. - Slate
Shortly after Jared Lee Loughner had been identified as the alleged shooter of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, online sleuths turned up pages of rambling text and videos he had created. A wave of amateur diagnoses soon followed, most of which concluded that Loughner was not so much a political extremist as a man suffering from "paranoid schizophrenia."
For many, the investigation will stop there. No need to explore personal motives, out-of-control grievances or distorted political anger. The mere mention of mental illness is explanation enough. This presumed link between psychiatric disorders and violence has become so entrenched in the public consciousness that the entire weight of the medical evidence is unable to shift it. Severe mental illness, on its own, is not an explanation for violence, but don't expect to hear that from the media in the coming weeks.
A 2009 analysis of nearly 20,000 individuals concluded that increased risk of violence was associated with drug and alcohol problems, regardless of whether the person had schizophrenia. Two similar analyses on bipolar patients showed, along similar lines, that the risk of violent crime is fractionally increased by the illness, while it goes up substantially among those who are dependent on intoxicating substances. In other words, it's likely that some of the people in your local bar are at greater risk of committing murder than your average person with mental illness.
The fact that mental illness is so often used to explain violent acts despite the evidence to the contrary almost certainly flows from how such cases are handled in the media. Numerous studies show that crimes by people with psychiatric problems are over-reported, usually with gross inaccuracies that give a false impression of risk. With this constant misrepresentation, it's not surprising that the public sees mental illness as an easy explanation for heartbreaking events. We haven't yet learned all the details of the tragic shooting in Arizona, but I suspect mental illness will be falsely accused many times over.
Crazy Talk
We're too quick to use "mental illness" as an explanation for violence. - Slate
Shortly after Jared Lee Loughner had been identified as the alleged shooter of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, online sleuths turned up pages of rambling text and videos he had created. A wave of amateur diagnoses soon followed, most of which concluded that Loughner was not so much a political extremist as a man suffering from "paranoid schizophrenia."
For many, the investigation will stop there. No need to explore personal motives, out-of-control grievances or distorted political anger. The mere mention of mental illness is explanation enough. This presumed link between psychiatric disorders and violence has become so entrenched in the public consciousness that the entire weight of the medical evidence is unable to shift it. Severe mental illness, on its own, is not an explanation for violence, but don't expect to hear that from the media in the coming weeks.
A 2009 analysis of nearly 20,000 individuals concluded that increased risk of violence was associated with drug and alcohol problems, regardless of whether the person had schizophrenia. Two similar analyses on bipolar patients showed, along similar lines, that the risk of violent crime is fractionally increased by the illness, while it goes up substantially among those who are dependent on intoxicating substances. In other words, it's likely that some of the people in your local bar are at greater risk of committing murder than your average person with mental illness.
The fact that mental illness is so often used to explain violent acts despite the evidence to the contrary almost certainly flows from how such cases are handled in the media. Numerous studies show that crimes by people with psychiatric problems are over-reported, usually with gross inaccuracies that give a false impression of risk. With this constant misrepresentation, it's not surprising that the public sees mental illness as an easy explanation for heartbreaking events. We haven't yet learned all the details of the tragic shooting in Arizona, but I suspect mental illness will be falsely accused many times over.
Thank you, Terry for your links. I have worked in higher education and, like a parent, there is not much that a teacher or administrator can do even when it is obvious that a student needs help. I dealt with a mentally ill student (before I knew difficult child was a difficult child or knew of this site). I was not concerned about my safety as this student was not threatening but she continually had housing issues as she moved to multiple places beleving that someone was entering her apt and putting chemicals on the furniture that were affecting her. She would tell other stories that seemed paranoid and/or delusional. We referred her to student services and tried to get her to see a mental health professional. She eventually completed a degree and moved on. But she was an "adult" there was very little we could do. Very difficult.
gcvmom
Here we go again!
I saw this article, too. However, I took exception to the suggestion of a false accusation of mental illness in this instance. It IS the explanation, in my opinion. There are millions of people who are angered by certain socio/political situations that exist right now, yet there are a scant minorty who EVER react violently or to the extreme that happened in this case, and in this instance the person clearly is ill.
The fallout I worry about is knee-jerk legislation that is blind to the heart of the problem.
TerryJ2
Well-Known Member
Gcvmom and Runaway, yes, my daughter and I were talking yesterday about mental illness, violence and politics, and we definitely agree that inflammatory comments by politicians, for ex., cannot be weighted that much with-accountability for unstable actions, or else we would have seen a slew of mentally ill people flying planes into bldgs (there was one last yr, a small plane, by a guy with-a tax grudge) or just going in and shooting people on radio shows.
ANY inflammatory phrase can trigger psychosis if the mind is ready for it. In fact, it doesn't have to be an inflammatory phrase. Several yrs ago, a woman who was the garage guard downtown Hampton, VA, noticed a man behaving oddly and she smiled and asked, "Are you all right?" She was shot and killed because she was NICE to him.
I think there are as many exceptions to the rules as there are dxes, but certain personalities are drawn to certain events or ideas, such as conspiracy theories. I'm sure a psychologist or psychiatrist could explain why, but mostly, because that sort of environment feeds into an already existing paranoia.
ANY inflammatory phrase can trigger psychosis if the mind is ready for it. In fact, it doesn't have to be an inflammatory phrase. Several yrs ago, a woman who was the garage guard downtown Hampton, VA, noticed a man behaving oddly and she smiled and asked, "Are you all right?" She was shot and killed because she was NICE to him.
I think there are as many exceptions to the rules as there are dxes, but certain personalities are drawn to certain events or ideas, such as conspiracy theories. I'm sure a psychologist or psychiatrist could explain why, but mostly, because that sort of environment feeds into an already existing paranoia.
TerryJ2
Well-Known Member
The fallout I worry about is knee-jerk legislation that is blind to the heart of the problem.
It's already starting. Some guy (whose name I didn't memorize because the bill will be defeated) has proposed that certain images and phrases can't be used on websites. (A certain Alaska female person apparently has something on her website that he referenced.)
Free speech will knock that one down b4 it hits the floor.
Nice try, though.
The fact remains, as others here have pointed out, that there are millions of people in this world who are mentally ill, and not only do they not hurt people, but we often work right alongside them every day with-o a clue as to their underlying issues. Which is as it should be.
It's already starting. Some guy (whose name I didn't memorize because the bill will be defeated) has proposed that certain images and phrases can't be used on websites. (A certain Alaska female person apparently has something on her website that he referenced.)
Free speech will knock that one down b4 it hits the floor.
Nice try, though.
The fact remains, as others here have pointed out, that there are millions of people in this world who are mentally ill, and not only do they not hurt people, but we often work right alongside them every day with-o a clue as to their underlying issues. Which is as it should be.
DDD
Well-Known Member
Just read an article about the parents. If the article is accurate the parents are isolated people. Allegedly the parents are only known by one neighbor. He reports they are hysterical, crying and have barred their gate to keep reporters away.
Makes me wonder if their isolation is due to their issues or whether, like many of us, they had difficult child issues that made it too difficult to interact with easy child families. Very sad situation. DDD
Makes me wonder if their isolation is due to their issues or whether, like many of us, they had difficult child issues that made it too difficult to interact with easy child families. Very sad situation. DDD
totoro
Mom? What's a difficult child?
It is a fact that Tucson is very intolerant of the Mentally Ill. When we moved here we thought they would have good services because of what they claimed at the university and the hospitals. We have received horrible treatment at one of the biggest places here in town and they try to deny that mental illness even exists in young people. Our psychiatrist fights this and continues debate most here in the big facilities. She helped run the one therapeutic school for the mentally ill youth but that was shut down due to budget cuts and funds being shifted elsewhere.
The parks and downtown are littered with homeless and mentally ill- nowhere for them go. This is not a huge town. It is sad because this is not a new story in the US.
The parks and downtown are littered with homeless and mentally ill- nowhere for them go. This is not a huge town. It is sad because this is not a new story in the US.
