witzend
Well-Known Member
My personal experience is that all a person has to do is at any moment during the interview say "No, it was only talk. I would never actually harm myself or anyone else." It's the free pass, and everyone knows it.
Psychotic? Schizophrenic? Both?
- Thread starter gcvmom
- Start date
My personal experience is that all a person has to do is at any moment during the interview say "No, it was only talk. I would never actually harm myself or anyone else." It's the free pass, and everyone knows it.
Mom2oddson
Active Member
Not in our county. Ant's good friend DJ is awaiting sentencing for murder. He's mentally ill and was having a break-down. His Mom called the ambulance and had him taken for a 72 hour old. They let him out the next day and he ended up killing the neighbor lady. Unfortunately, they wouldn't do a insanity plea. So, he'll have life in prison with no mental health.
And it really doesn't help when in Washington State, they allow a 13 year old to have total say over their mental health. Both of my children were told this when they turned 13 by their psychiatrist. The only reason they kept going was my threat to ground them and take away cell phones, computers, etc.... Not that they actually did anything but sit in the room.
The last place that Steph was at, said that she needed at least a good six months in a place that specialize in personality disorders. The insurance refused, and we couldn't get financing before she moved in with mother in law. And I often think, by the Grace of God.... And I really hope that I never have to go through what these parents are going through.
KTMom91
Well-Known Member
Fresno County no longer has an emergency 24-hour mental health facility...closed due to budget cuts. If I remember correctly, there's someone "on call" who will go to the various emergency rooms if someone comes in with a mental health issue, but this is a pretty good-sized county and there are a lot of hospitals.
I was watching the coverage yesterday, and will be interested to learn what that young man was thinking, whether his reasons were political, social, religious, or understandable only to him.
I was watching the coverage yesterday, and will be interested to learn what that young man was thinking, whether his reasons were political, social, religious, or understandable only to him.
You know, it's a real catch-22. I feel *very* strongly about the right to self-determine for folks with- disabilities. Boo should have the right to say whether or not he wants to live at home or in a supported environment or in a nursing home (current disastrous state of affairs re: living situations for young folks with- disabilities notwithstanding). I part company with- disability rights groups when it comes to folks with severe mental illness having that same right. "A danger to self or others"... how many of us have had kids who flip on and off like a light switch? I used to show up at ERs with bite marks and bruises from thank you, but because he was calm *at that moment*, he was not admitted.
This young man may well turn out to be the very epitome of how services are failing not only the mentally ill, but also the general public. We don't have (to my knowledge) mandatory long-term care for folks with- severe mental illness. I mean - it's always baffled me completely - by definition, doesn't severe mental illness mean an inability to function, an inability to make appropriate choices? Why on earth do we allow revolving door admissions? (OK, I know the answer to that one - it's a heck of a lot cheaper in the short run.) Why, if it turns out campus administration and/or police were *aware* of this young man struggling, was nothing done? Why are parents or peers or colleagues or teachers *not* allowed to refer adults who are in obvious distress (though perhaps not yet a danger) for treatment? This "danger to self or others" garbage just isn't working out so good..
It's frustrating and scary and ... there just is not going to be any easy answer. Lots of blame, lots of fault, but I just don't think anything substantive is going to change.
This young man may well turn out to be the very epitome of how services are failing not only the mentally ill, but also the general public. We don't have (to my knowledge) mandatory long-term care for folks with- severe mental illness. I mean - it's always baffled me completely - by definition, doesn't severe mental illness mean an inability to function, an inability to make appropriate choices? Why on earth do we allow revolving door admissions? (OK, I know the answer to that one - it's a heck of a lot cheaper in the short run.) Why, if it turns out campus administration and/or police were *aware* of this young man struggling, was nothing done? Why are parents or peers or colleagues or teachers *not* allowed to refer adults who are in obvious distress (though perhaps not yet a danger) for treatment? This "danger to self or others" garbage just isn't working out so good..
It's frustrating and scary and ... there just is not going to be any easy answer. Lots of blame, lots of fault, but I just don't think anything substantive is going to change.
H
HaoZi
Guest
That's rather what I mean. Any way you turn it the system often isn't much help, and I always hope these cases will bring attention and concern to it and someone with enough brains can work out a way to get more good help to more people that need it, but I don't see it happening. Just like the uproar over previous cases like this didn't change much (if anything) that is truly helpful. I'd love to see some major mental health advocate get up and run with it though.
TerryJ2
Well-Known Member
Sigh. Here's something i hadn't seen b4. This Loughner kid wrote on an envelope that he planned to kill the congresswoman, but the sheriff adds : "There's reason to believe this individual may have a mental issue," Dupnik told reporters Saturday night.
Quite the understatement.
Quite the understatement.
totoro
Mom? What's a difficult child?
Being right here through it all and having the local news non stop with no actual tv on yesterday at all and very little today, they have not said much about his mental state. I have watched this area shut down services for the mentally ill and cut funding left and right. I just sat last week and talked to a cop about how they dislike the mentally ill and would rather not deal with them. His sister and I both had to bite our tongues because she has an autistic son and we were fuming...
I will not go into all of the politics that are swirling around here between the locals and the. Our doctors have told us story after story about people not getting help here and how hard it is to even get help after seeking it out.
Arizona does not help it's own. Sad and horrible the whole situation is just horrible.
I will not go into all of the politics that are swirling around here between the locals and the. Our doctors have told us story after story about people not getting help here and how hard it is to even get help after seeking it out.
Arizona does not help it's own. Sad and horrible the whole situation is just horrible.
gcvmom
Here we go again!
Uh, ya think?
Totoro's observations hit it on the head. People just don't want to deal with it! It's like the homeless situation in my state. Unless you live in the urban cities where the problem confronts you every single day, it's "out of sight, out of mind." And if a solution or program is created that brings these people into other communities, you see a similar NIMBY attitude and people get pushed away.
Just goes to show you how much work still needs to be done to help these special populations. Maybe that's the problem. They are looked at as a POPULATION, as if they are separate from the whole, when in fact they are your neighbor, your coworker, your child's classmate, your relatives. It all comes back to the stigma that is still fostered in every sector of our society.
TerryJ2
Well-Known Member
I found an article that intereviews a neighbor of the gunman. Once again, this shooter fits the "loner" profile.
Not that anyone could have done anything about it. As several of you have mentioned, it is just too easy to retract statements and then go on your merry way.
Not that anyone could have done anything about it. As several of you have mentioned, it is just too easy to retract statements and then go on your merry way.
TerryJ2
Well-Known Member
Here it is--the article you all wanted to see!
Very nicely written.
Tragedy of Mental Illness - Fox News
The story of Jared Loughners murderous rampage, which took the lives of six innocent victims and critically wounded Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, will ultimately prove to be a story about how severe mental illnessincluding that linked to violenceroutinely goes untreated.
By all accounts, Loughner was psychiatrically ill long before he shot anyone. He was described by a high school classmate as a drug user and loner whose thoughts made little sense. Ultimately, he dropped out. He apparently tried to complete a high school equivalency while enrolled in the Aztec Middle Community College, a program offered by Pima Community College that caters to those who have no high school diploma. He couldnt finish up there, either. In fact, police were reportedly called to campus five separate times because Loughner was behaving erratically. A teacher has been quoted as saying that he worried frequently whether Loughner had a gun. Students say he was prone to nonsensical outbursts. He was sent home with the instructions that he not return until it could be proven that he was not a danger to himself or others.
While polarized political parties may not be the best way to govern, I believe they will turn out to have absolutely nothing to do with Loughner turning into a killer. His murderousness will have nothing to do with the availability of firearms. His violence will be understood as a result of a severe, untreated or undertreated mental illness -- the kind that afflicts millions of young people in this country.
Very nicely written.
Tragedy of Mental Illness - Fox News
The story of Jared Loughners murderous rampage, which took the lives of six innocent victims and critically wounded Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, will ultimately prove to be a story about how severe mental illnessincluding that linked to violenceroutinely goes untreated.
By all accounts, Loughner was psychiatrically ill long before he shot anyone. He was described by a high school classmate as a drug user and loner whose thoughts made little sense. Ultimately, he dropped out. He apparently tried to complete a high school equivalency while enrolled in the Aztec Middle Community College, a program offered by Pima Community College that caters to those who have no high school diploma. He couldnt finish up there, either. In fact, police were reportedly called to campus five separate times because Loughner was behaving erratically. A teacher has been quoted as saying that he worried frequently whether Loughner had a gun. Students say he was prone to nonsensical outbursts. He was sent home with the instructions that he not return until it could be proven that he was not a danger to himself or others.
While polarized political parties may not be the best way to govern, I believe they will turn out to have absolutely nothing to do with Loughner turning into a killer. His murderousness will have nothing to do with the availability of firearms. His violence will be understood as a result of a severe, untreated or undertreated mental illness -- the kind that afflicts millions of young people in this country.
Last edited by a moderator:
H
HaoZi
Guest
I don't generally care for FoxNews, but I'll second slsh.
Marguerite
Active Member
I get narky when "the system' is blamed, without anyone being specific. It is too easy to apportion blame, often superficially. We have heard from one another on this site just how difficult it is to get the necessary mental health resources for our kids, especial;y when they believe they don't need it. And this is not simply a US lack of decent health care issue - this is a human rights issue, it is where human rights of the individual clash with the right of the individual to be given much-needed treatment.
Someone who is having a psychotic break is not generally in a fit state to make their own health care choices. Too often, however, the laws that we need in so many other parts of society intervene and prevent the vital medical treatment these people need.
We have a really good health care system in Australia, but this could have happened here too. In fact, it did happen here - the Port Arthur massacre was carried out by someone mentally ill who decided one day to go hunting people. His name is known but not mentioned. I won't post a link - I found one but it is too painfully detailed.
My point is - the warning signs were there, we have a great health system, but this still happened. It was about as political as this Arizona shooting (ie not at all).
I was glad the killer at Port Arthur was taken alive - people needed answers. For what they were worth. Same story here - this is a very sick young man who should have got help but was really in no condition to get it himself. And the law that gives people the right to choose, can not take away a person's right to refuse treatment even if they are not sane enough to make such a choice.
The Port Arthur massacre is the reason we have strict gun laws in Australia. Ironically, it was our most conservative leader in recent decades who brought in those gun laws. At the time a lot of people said these laws would be a disaster and infringed on human rights, but I personally think they work. They certainly make it more difficult for people who are obviously unstable, to get their hands on a gun. However, people who need guns for their livelihood (and this includes farmers) can still get guns. But records are now kept, crime using guns has greatly reduced. People here use guns for legitimate purposes. But this is Australia - what worked here may not necessarily work so well somewhere else.
I am glad they have this guy alive. Perhaps the worst punishment of all for him, is to be treated, helped back to sanity, and then made aware of what he did. A lifetime of guilt will hurt far more than a police bullet.
These tragedies will continue to happen while ever people with psychosis are unable to be helped when they need to be. But if we help them by imposing our wills, then it is at the expense of human rights. Whatever way you go, something gets broken.
One of my best friends had a husband who became psychotic and tried to kill her. She had to go into hiding, it was known he had threatened her. He really was psychotic, he believed she was trying to kill him (by slow poisoning - ie his medications) and so he was trying to get her first. The police knew. Doctors knew. But to have him committed, they had to arrive with two doctors with paperwork ready plus police while he was threatening his wife, but before he actually killed anyone. And despite his psychosis, he was too smart for that - he would turn up, threaten for fifteen minutes, then scarper as soon as he heard the sirens. I am amazed my friend wasn't killed. I know if he started killing, he wouldn't have been able to stop. The kids would have been killed, and my friend's parents (who also lived there).
My friend's husband recovered. It took ten years or more, but in that time she unbelievably allowed him access to the kids, eventually he had unsupervised visitation. And they both remarried and have been very good friends. He is stable, functioning and has not had any problems for nearly 20 years now.
The tragedy is that this happened. But I'm sure that if/when they go back into it, although there were plenty of warning signs, at what point could anyone have stepped in and said, "You have grounds to have him involuntarily committed."?
So I hope that the blame game won't result in the plot being lost. If some good can come of this, then perhaps some strategies can be put in place to perhaps help such patients get medical treatment before this sort of thing happens.
I feel for his parents right now. All the guilt he should be feeling, will be on them. But I'm betting when it all comes down - what more could they have done?
So very, very sad.
Marg
Someone who is having a psychotic break is not generally in a fit state to make their own health care choices. Too often, however, the laws that we need in so many other parts of society intervene and prevent the vital medical treatment these people need.
We have a really good health care system in Australia, but this could have happened here too. In fact, it did happen here - the Port Arthur massacre was carried out by someone mentally ill who decided one day to go hunting people. His name is known but not mentioned. I won't post a link - I found one but it is too painfully detailed.
My point is - the warning signs were there, we have a great health system, but this still happened. It was about as political as this Arizona shooting (ie not at all).
I was glad the killer at Port Arthur was taken alive - people needed answers. For what they were worth. Same story here - this is a very sick young man who should have got help but was really in no condition to get it himself. And the law that gives people the right to choose, can not take away a person's right to refuse treatment even if they are not sane enough to make such a choice.
The Port Arthur massacre is the reason we have strict gun laws in Australia. Ironically, it was our most conservative leader in recent decades who brought in those gun laws. At the time a lot of people said these laws would be a disaster and infringed on human rights, but I personally think they work. They certainly make it more difficult for people who are obviously unstable, to get their hands on a gun. However, people who need guns for their livelihood (and this includes farmers) can still get guns. But records are now kept, crime using guns has greatly reduced. People here use guns for legitimate purposes. But this is Australia - what worked here may not necessarily work so well somewhere else.
I am glad they have this guy alive. Perhaps the worst punishment of all for him, is to be treated, helped back to sanity, and then made aware of what he did. A lifetime of guilt will hurt far more than a police bullet.
These tragedies will continue to happen while ever people with psychosis are unable to be helped when they need to be. But if we help them by imposing our wills, then it is at the expense of human rights. Whatever way you go, something gets broken.
One of my best friends had a husband who became psychotic and tried to kill her. She had to go into hiding, it was known he had threatened her. He really was psychotic, he believed she was trying to kill him (by slow poisoning - ie his medications) and so he was trying to get her first. The police knew. Doctors knew. But to have him committed, they had to arrive with two doctors with paperwork ready plus police while he was threatening his wife, but before he actually killed anyone. And despite his psychosis, he was too smart for that - he would turn up, threaten for fifteen minutes, then scarper as soon as he heard the sirens. I am amazed my friend wasn't killed. I know if he started killing, he wouldn't have been able to stop. The kids would have been killed, and my friend's parents (who also lived there).
My friend's husband recovered. It took ten years or more, but in that time she unbelievably allowed him access to the kids, eventually he had unsupervised visitation. And they both remarried and have been very good friends. He is stable, functioning and has not had any problems for nearly 20 years now.
The tragedy is that this happened. But I'm sure that if/when they go back into it, although there were plenty of warning signs, at what point could anyone have stepped in and said, "You have grounds to have him involuntarily committed."?
So I hope that the blame game won't result in the plot being lost. If some good can come of this, then perhaps some strategies can be put in place to perhaps help such patients get medical treatment before this sort of thing happens.
I feel for his parents right now. All the guilt he should be feeling, will be on them. But I'm betting when it all comes down - what more could they have done?
So very, very sad.
Marg
DammitJanet
Well-Known Member
This is one of the pitfalls from the country closing down all the state run, long term mental hospitals. Back in the 60s or early 70's they just opened the doors and closed all those facilities and the patients became some of the countries largest group of homeless people. There was no where for them to go. Families didnt want these patients that had been in govt run facilities for years and years suddenly showing up at their doors. Most got maybe a months worth of medication and a card with the name of some outpatient facility on it.
That certainly worked out well.
It used to be that you could get that sick uncle or different aunt or brother into a home. Now, you are lucky if you get a 24 hour hold for danger to self or others and drugged out of their mind, walking naked down the interstate doesnt count. It used to.
Sad.
That certainly worked out well.
It used to be that you could get that sick uncle or different aunt or brother into a home. Now, you are lucky if you get a 24 hour hold for danger to self or others and drugged out of their mind, walking naked down the interstate doesnt count. It used to.
Sad.
totoro
Mom? What's a difficult child?
It really hoovers being here right now. We have so many people walking around saying some of the most horrible things... Some of these people were saying nasty things about Gabby being re-elected a few months ago. (not to get political) but so many people honestly don't look at the picture from every angle and say things that are reactionary. I just keep hearing the same thing over and over, I have had to be out all morning running errands, that who cares if he is "a nut case" or "psycho" make him suffer and die a slow cruel death! People are saying this out loud.... I agree that he should spend his life somewhere after being stabilized. But his mental health should be looked at. It isn't an excuse it is a fact if he is mentally ill. He shouldn't be let off the hook but he should be treated.
I am just walking here around unable to say a thing... Except to a few close friends.
I am just walking here around unable to say a thing... Except to a few close friends.
Marguerite
Active Member
On Aussie news today there are reports of politicians from both sides (I won't name them here) trying to make political capital out of this. It makes me so angry! They are missing the point, and if they really wanted to make a difference they could win themselves so many more brownie points by saying, "This tells us we need to look in more detail at mental health."
There is no way this was remotely political. I don't even think the various competitive rhetoric from political parties could be responsible for this. Yes, it can cause problems for some unstable people being whipped up by it, but form what this guy was apparently writing beforehand, I don't think it impinged on his radar. His thinking was in a different universe entirely.
I hope the politicians get the message soon, to stop using this case as a weapon with which to bludgeon their political opponents. I think it is very bad taste for them to even try. And I apply that to ALL politicians, regardless of who they claim to represent.
While ever this is seen as even remotely political, nothing positive can come out of it. And those lives should not be wasted.
Marg
There is no way this was remotely political. I don't even think the various competitive rhetoric from political parties could be responsible for this. Yes, it can cause problems for some unstable people being whipped up by it, but form what this guy was apparently writing beforehand, I don't think it impinged on his radar. His thinking was in a different universe entirely.
I hope the politicians get the message soon, to stop using this case as a weapon with which to bludgeon their political opponents. I think it is very bad taste for them to even try. And I apply that to ALL politicians, regardless of who they claim to represent.
While ever this is seen as even remotely political, nothing positive can come out of it. And those lives should not be wasted.
Marg
gcvmom
Here we go again!
It appears that way.
I am also enfuriated by the religious fringe group that is now putting their spin on this tragedy.
MSNBC posted a post-custody picture of the suspect today, and to me, he LOOKS manically giddy, as if he is trying to contain himself over some private joke that clearly nobody else gets.
When you look at this event, the Cho event too, it just screams the lack of adequate screening and/or follow up for people who are suspected of this kind of instability. What might have been the outcome had the professors who had him physically removed from classes for erratic and disruptive behavior had actually filed a report that led to his temporary detention and evaluation? If they can say that he has to prove he's no longer a danger to others before he's allowed back, then why didn't anyone take the next step to find out WHY or IF he truly was a danger? I don't know the answer, but maybe someone here does. Do schools have the authority to intervene and alert authorities if a student (minor OR adult) is considered dangerous enough to ban from classes?
