121–130 of 143 posts
In Canada they get treatment and are set free without restrictions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tim_McLean#Aftermat...
Slightly off-topic, but > After the incident, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals attempted to run an ad in the Portage Daily Graphic comparing the killing of McLean to the consumption of animals WTF peta?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I got the impression it was because of some rules or fear of lawsuits. The result is the same though - I would never recommend checking in unless you have no other choice. If you do talk to a psychologist, know when to lie.
As bad as it is, or as bad as it can be - as not everyone has bad experiences, I'm not sure I can recommend being dishonest with a mental health care provider during a time of crisis. Unfortunately, the system is designed to deal with a broad spectrum of people with myriad complexities. They do tend to take a very hard line approach and to assume the worst. They also have reason to not always trust the patient. It's…
I think for the majority of cases committing themselves usually makes the situation worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My brother also had a psychotic episode last year, was on injections of risperidone for some months, now only zyprexa, back to univsersity, almost normal, except for bipolar/borderline behaviors and a tendency towards creating drama. People don't understand that when someone is in a psychotic state, they don't live in the same reality. It's not a question of free will or choice, or control. People see distorted faces…
There is a lot to parse. Thoses drugs are dangerous and do not cure a patient usually leaving them in a worse state mentally. When you are the one forced to make these decisions its tough because there are no easy answers. I find the traveling through time reference interesting. I remember the line from slaughter house 5. What cosmic truth was he approaching?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is interesting because different people and different countries seem to have different ideas about he purpose of the the justice system. Punishment/retribution, correction/rehabilitation, or protecting the public. Someone like this may not be guilty due to insanity, but still be a danger to the public for example.
The thing that I worry about in these cases is the lack of "enforceability" of treatment. If keeping the person in control of themselves (such that they don't become violent again) means they need to be on medication for the rest of their lives, how do we ensure (post-release) that they'll always be on their meds? I know of people on various medications for psychiatric reasons that have (against their doctor's recomm…
They don't seem to work in that sense. There doesn't seem to have been a reduction in hospital use in that group.
English MH treatment is very different to the US though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If we could trust them to lock them up we need to trust them to release them too. This guy was getting locked up no matter what. The only question was, was he getting locked up in a prison or in a psych ward? So do we trust psychiatry enough to say "lock him up here rather than there"? Sure. Do we trust them enough to say "It's safe to release him now"? That's a harder question.
An interesting point (raised by the article) is the term of imprisonment. If he hadn't gotten NGRI, but had gone to jail, and it wasn't a life-without-parole sentence, he would have been released eventually. In the involuntary commitment case, is it reasonable to hold a person longer than what the equivalent prison sentence would be, even if the person is still considered mentally ill after the equivalent time?
In England a prisoner who becomes mentally ill and is sent to hospital will be kept in hospital until they are well. The legal powers to send them to hospital and keep them there are listed in the Mental Health Act. People are detained under section of the MHA - commonly known as sectioned.
When a prisoner detained under section is in hospital and their prison sentence ends their section is converted to a different one, which allows treatment to continue.
There was a very high profile case in Ontario over a decade ago. Basically, the man went into an absolute psychotic state on the travelling bus and cut the head off a stranger while everyone else on the bus ran for their lives. A decade later, he's been released- under a lot of conditions and on a lot of medication, but people are very upset that he'd ever be free at all. In interviews, he's a very interesting person…
> But he did cut a guy's head off. Would you want to live next to the guy who did that while not in control of himself? Well, if he is considered sane by trustworthy professionals, then why not? I can't see how it's different to live next to someone who is cured after 10 years of treatment, as opposed to say someone who was in prison for 10 years for the same crime (Where I live this would likely be considered more s…
It's much harder to tell whether a person will offend again, and there are severe consequences if that person does offend again, so professionals are risk averse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But he did cut a guy's head off. Would you want to live next to the guy who did that while not in control of himself? Well, if he is considered sane by trustworthy professionals, then why not? I can't see how it's different to live next to someone who is cured after 10 years of treatment, as opposed to say someone who was in prison for 10 years for the same crime (Where I live this would likely be considered more s…
It's reasonably easy to say whether someone is currently experiencing psychosis or not, or is currently experiencing hypomania. It's much harder to tell whether a person will offend again, and there are severe consequences if that person does offend again, so professionals are risk averse.
Right. But this often takes place several months or years after the crime was committed. So might still be difficult.
> It's much harder to tell whether a person will offend again, and there are severe consequences if that person does offend again
Yes, someone might get hurt. So yes, risk aversion involved. But also: there are severe consequences for the opposite too. Remember this is a person that is not guilty (responsible) for a crime, that is kept locked up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It should be noted that voluntary commitments can rapidly and more easily become involuntary commitments. After all, the patient has already admitted that they are unwell. Yes. Once admitted you have something no matter how convincing you are. Never talked to someone who walked out having not be diagnosed with something.
I'm not sure this is really on-topic, but I'll share it anyhow. I think it adds to your statement with personal experience. Warning: This may be a bit long and hastily written. For reasons, I once doubted my sanity. To make a long story short, I used to use an obscene amount of drugs. I'm an addict in recovery, sort of - I take prescribed Suboxone. I didn't use because I didn't feel well, I used because I wanted to f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As bad as it is, or as bad as it can be - as not everyone has bad experiences, I'm not sure I can recommend being dishonest with a mental health care provider during a time of crisis. Unfortunately, the system is designed to deal with a broad spectrum of people with myriad complexities. They do tend to take a very hard line approach and to assume the worst. They also have reason to not always trust the patient. It's…
They are invested in finding an illness. It is how the system functions and the point of treatment is to keep you in treatment because when you are in treatment you are safe. The drugs they give in turn cause many of the problems they treat. I think for the majority of cases committing themselves usually makes the situation worse.