Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Time to bring back asylums?

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 397 posts

Re: Time to bring back asylums?

#191

Post by EatingWithForks »

imgabe wrote: post #177
EatingWithForks wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot merely wave aside that your proposed solution is a solution that also already evidenced to have caused mental illness on a broad, demographic-specific scale , in the name of solving mental illness! That's patently ridiculous.

Which of the following statements are you advocating for: 1. There is never any reason to involuntarily commit someone 2. There are valid reasons, but there is no known diagnostic that can detect them. 3. There are valid reasons, and we can detect them, but there is no way to prevent people from involuntarily committing people for other reasons, even if we make laws and conduct audits to ensure that only valid reason…

You are not addressing my concerns and are mostly creating straw men to avoid that I am pointing out the historical, real, already evidenced harms of the proposed solution.

Re: Time to bring back asylums?

#192

Post by c22 »

phatskat wrote: post #61
iancmceachern wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really at all. In a sentence, we need a public infrastructure in place to care for the mentally ill that currently are forced to live on the streets of our major cities. We need a way to pay the people that do the work, buy the buildings, keep the lights on. We call this infrastructure asylums, whatever you want to call it we need it desperately. If you want to stop things like what you cited from happening, lobb…

Or make healthcare accessible. Make housing accessible. Make food accessible. We can house feed and care for every person on the planet but we don’t because money. A made up concept that has no actual value outside of what we place on it. It’s arbitrary, as much as markets would want us to believe otherwise. As a species we choose to let them have that power, and with it they will kill us all (seriously)

Determining value is the value of money. Without it we might get too busy making paperclips and forget to feed people all the same.

It's a crude system, more ad-hoc evolved than intelligently designed, and definitely historically manipulated at every chance. Nonetheless, anyone who lobbies for the dissolution of our monetary systems can't be taken seriously unless they also are arguing for a suitable replacement of this functionality.

In the past, systems that relied on the opinions of a small group or single individual to determine the value of different types of production to society have failed spectacularly so the solution will need to be more robust than that.

Re: Time to bring back asylums?

#193

Post by [deleted] »

kneebonian wrote: post #181
fragmede wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In response to baby formula getting stolen, supermarkets put it at the front under lock and key. Which is an entirely logical conclusion under our current system and culture. But something is clearly wrong with how we distribute resources when helpless infants can't get what they need.

So is the point of clarification around the baby formula thing there was actually an article oh few months ago a while back anyway that pointed out that most of this baby formula that was being stolen wasn't actually by needing mothers but was actually part of a massive international crime syndicate that was stealing it and then reselling the goods. It turns out that when it's easy to steal things that people need or…

[deleted]

Re: Time to bring back asylums?

#194

Post by kelnos »

bobthepanda wrote: post #60
warning26 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What this person wants to bring back is the ability to lock people up and keep people locked up there with little recourse. Yes. This is what we need; the fact is, many mentally ill individuals need help, but are not capable of realizing that they need help, and will refuse any attempt to offer it. Without the power to detain such an individual against their will, that person will remain on the streets, which is a…

The issue is that when you carve out exceptions to human rights, they get abused. If you can suspend the rights of someone declared mentally ill, the unscrupulous parts of government will be tempted to declare politically inconvenient people mentally ill and strip them of their rights. Even in the United States, this happened during the suffragette movement; those women hunger striking for the vote were sometimes imp…

Safeguards can be put into place, and these days it's easier to shine light on things (and get information about abuses out to the world) than it was in the past, but I agree that there will be abuse.

I think we have to accept that, unfortunately. Our current situation is untenable, and there really just does not seem to be any way to "fix" someone on the streets with a mental illness without committing them to a mental institution. If you do believe there is another way that will be broadly applicable and successful, please suggest alternatives.

I'll agree that we also need significant structural changes to society (which will lessen the number of people who end up in these bad situations in general), but those changes will take years (if not decades), and the bleeding needs to be stopped in the meantime.

Re: Time to bring back asylums?

#195

Post by iancmceachern »

amadeuspagel wrote: post #43
iancmceachern wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really at all. In a sentence, we need a public infrastructure in place to care for the mentally ill that currently are forced to live on the streets of our major cities. We need a way to pay the people that do the work, buy the buildings, keep the lights on. We call this infrastructure asylums, whatever you want to call it we need it desperately. If you want to stop things like what you cited from happening, lobb…

Homeless shelters still exist too. It's not about what to call it, it's about whether people are forced to be there.

Asylum does not necessarily mean people are forced to be there. You can go out, advocate or hell, even be a part of running one, defining rhe rules. You can make an asylum that doesn't do that.

I'm behind you, when are you starting? We have lots of people that need help, please hurry.

Re: Time to bring back asylums?

#197

Post by EatingWithForks »

janalsncm wrote: post #162
EatingWithForks wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think detaining a criminal is the counter-example you want to be using here. If anything, the horrific and egregious ways that the incarcerated are treated is proof that the government is incapable of not further harming people who they deprive of human rights.

The point is that you cannot categorically say that human rights should not be suspended for any reason. The fact that a particular implementation happens to be unpleasant and at times unfair does not 1) suggest that human rights should never be suspended or 2) suggest that the alternative would not be at least as unpleasant. Few people would suggest that not having prisons is a better alternative than having them, h…

I'm merely pointing out that the criminal system is an extremely poor example that the government won't further abuse people once it takes their civil liberties.

If anything its an example that suggesting to bring back asylums should be considered synonymous to an advocacy where the abuse of detained people is taken into account as an acceptable cost.

But mind you: The last time we implemented detaining people, this was in border control, and resulted in the border patrol trafficking children through abusing the child separation policies at the time. There are still tens of thousands of missing children from this policy, implemented for a scant few years.

Re: Time to bring back asylums?

#198

Post by danShumway »

novok wrote: post #189
EatingWithForks wrote: post #89

For anyone who wants to bring back asylums: first and foremost, you must imagine that you will be subjected to asylums as they existed. You could simply be protesting while black or female, considered insane for protesting and forcibly detained-- for which you can be raped and assaulted, and any reporting to the police of your trauma isn't taken seriously because you're considered insane. It's nonsensical to say we s…

Asylums are prison type 2, and I am already subjected to the possibility of prison for crimes. Most arguments against asylums is an argument against criminal prosecution, police and prisons in general. Make the standards the same then and only subject to committing an actual crime in the first place?

I frankly don't believe that the majority of people advocating for forced institutionalization are going to be satisfied by waiting for someone to commit a crime. I think the majority of people advocating for the return of asylums want the State to be able to commit citizens to asylums before they do anything criminal.

Like you said, prison exists. And I will happily advocate for prison reforms within the existing legal system that allow for better rehabilitation of prisoners, particularly better rehabilitation for prisoners who suffer from mental disabilities or illnesses. Prisoners should have more access to mental health services, and prisons should be focused on treating and caring for prisoners who are struggling with mental health issues. And of course, prosecution already exists today, so prison reform changes nothing about prosecution, it would merely improve conditions for people forced into that system who have mental disabilities. Call it what it is -- prison, and then lets make prisons better. Sure, I'm on board.

But wait. Is that what people are calling for, even in this thread? People here are advocating that the government should have the ability to forcibly commit someone to an asylum. Well, wait a second, don't they already have that ability? What ability are workers currently lacking? They can forcibly commit someone to a prison once they've committed a crime and have been prosecuted. That system already exists, we have sentencing for crimes. So what do they want?

The fact that people are talking primarily about needing the ability to forcibly commit people indicates that they don't believe that police or judges or the legal system has that ability right now. They are arguing that current abilities to imprison people are not enough. They believe the State should have more power to forcibly imprison people than it currently does and that under certain situations the State should have the ability to expand prison sentences, possibly even indefinitely.

Otherwise they'd just be talking about prison reform and this wouldn't be a debate at all. Nobody is against prison reform[0].

----

[0]: Well, okay, many many people are against prison reform, but nobody who is worth paying attention to when they talk about justice or human rights or care for the mentally ill is against prison reform.

Re: Time to bring back asylums?

#199

Post by c22 »

phatskat wrote: post #129
yardstick wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both of those require resources. Or are you going to grow your own trees and build a log cabin yourself? How much time will that take? Can you build it by yourself or will you need someone elses help? These are all resources that are not unlimited, and there are trade offs whatever way you allocate said resources. Edit: also power, water, wastewater, internet for a house are services run using limited resources

First off there’s lots of housing or housable space - office buildings with tons of vacant rooms, Airbnb style properties that are just profit machines, hotels rarely at capacity, abandoned or unaffordable houses, vacation homes. There’s plenty of housing. Then let’s talk about restaurants and grocery stores and farms and factories where food is routinely thrown away daily. Can’t let employees take food home from the…

All the excess you cite is a result of this (albeit flawed) capitalist system we live with. I believe there will come a time where it is no longer necessary, but this will require levels of cooperation, education, and coordination that we are not nearly prepared to handle as a species.

For what it's worth, I worked for a while at a fast food joint that did allow employees to take food home, or to make extra of it and just consume it on premises during lunch break. Leftover food was frozen and donated to a shelter twice a week. This place is still in business and as far as I know still operating with these policies. Cynacism aside, I don't even think the place is that unique. If you look around you will find lots of groups motivated by something more than just the mighty dollar, perhaps even most enterprise. This despite the corrosive effects of capitalism you're fretting over.

Re: Time to bring back asylums?

#200

Post by wesapien »

nemo44x wrote: post #154
wtetzner wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest problem is who gets to decide which individuals "need" help.

That is extremely difficult and dangerous. For instance, someone who doesn’t go along with whatever the latest dogma is could be sent away by whom ever is in power. When does it go from mental help to reprogramming? Saying that I agree we need to bring back a new version of asylums. I’d hope there’s a bipartisan project there.

That's why for me it's not easy to forgive the people who were so righteous during the pandemic that ultimately got things wrong. They would've been happy to see people locked away for dissenting.
Post reply on HN