Live data from Hacker News

Time to bring back asylums?

wsj.com

241–250 of 397 posts

Re: Time to bring back asylums?

#241
post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

People are starving in the streets. I think this is a more spectacular failure than chandeliers produced by weight.

Re: Time to bring back asylums?

#242
post #219
post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If something goes really badly, and someone wants to try it again, the natural questions to ask that person are: * What do you think are the reasons why it went badly last time? * What are you proposing we do differently? * Are you sure that they weren't already doing that last time? * How do you think that this change would avoid things going badly again? Could you explicitly answer those questions? Maybe I'm just b…

I think coming up with a comprehensive mental health policy is a little beyond the scope of a HN comment, and certainly far beyond my expertise. I merely posit that such a policy could exist, and could be developed. I don't see why not. I mean, the comments here are like "b-b-but homosexuality used to be considered a mental illness!". Right, it was , but now it's not . So it seems pretty clear that to prevent people…

Homosexuality is still on the books as a crime in the State of Texas and probably elsewhere, it's only a 2003 Supreme Court case that makes it unenforceable. A court case a lot of people on the Court wouldn't mind overturning, I might add.

You may think these things are way in the past, but to many who aren't even that grey haired it was only yesterday.

I'm not necessarily arguing for or against asylums, but just arguing what seems to be something fixed in society can easily be overly assumed as the standard. It wasn't long ago that abortions were federally protected, now it's much less so. I wouldn't assume that things always march forwards, especially in the current climate. Then again, it all depends on your point of view which way "forwards" is.

So sure, you and I here, we can agree we shouldn't just say "you're gay, therefore need to be institutionalized." But honestly, there's a lot of people still out there that think differently. And in some ways, they're gaining influence and power.

Re: Time to bring back asylums?

#243
post #235
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think they're suddenly going to put homosexuality and BDSM back in the DSM-4 and lock people up for it? I mean, you look at the current political climate and you believe that is a thing that could actually happen when the White House is hosting a Pride parade? There are real people getting assaulted and murdered by the mentally ill right now. Not to mention the mentally ill themselves who are subject to violen…

> Do you think they're suddenly going to put homosexuality and BDSM back in the DSM-4 and lock people up for it? Are you asking whether rights people enjoyed for decades can be rolled back? You can't think of a single instance of that happening?

Lots of things can happen, I’m talking about addressing problems that are happening and not letting hypothetical fearmongering get in the way of doing that.

What’s the point here? We should never do anything if even one person can come up with some possible hypothetical scenario where it turns out badly?

Re: Time to bring back asylums?

#244
The issues with mental health care are largely a lack of funding (including via insurance).

If you are going to fund an asylum system well enough to be effective, you could fund our current system. If you are not going to fund it, you are literally reproducing the cycle that resulted in underfunded, abusive and hidden asylums of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Re: Time to bring back asylums?

#245
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you must imagine that you will be subjected to asylums as they existed. No you don't. Nobody is advocating for that. Nobody is saying we should follow the same broken standards that led to locking up people for protesting, or that we should allow abuse and rape. Do you not think there is any middle ground between raping protestors and letting people with violent schizophrenia live in a tent on the street?

What sort of protections do you advocate putting in place to prevent that?

The medical community already has well-developed ethics and treatment rules.

Re: Time to bring back asylums?

#246

Asylums still exist. What this person wants to bring back is the ability to lock people up and keep people locked up there with little recourse. A typical case from this time[1]: > [Cramer] frankly discusses the “regimented, often hopeless conditions of state mental hospitals”, talks about a hospital in Alabama where “care was worse than simply inadequate: one psychiatrist for 5000 patients; astonishingly low funding…

Do you have the actual source?

Re: Time to bring back asylums?

#247

Meanwhile I've been reading this New Yorker piece this morning: https://www.newyorker.com/science/annals-of-medicine/reinven... Reinventing the E.R. For America's Mental Health Crisis (subtitle: EmPATH units are advancing a radically new approach to psychiatric emergencies. It seems to be working. )

I'm all for re-inventing psychiatric care, however, this part of the article seems to cast doubt on the true efficacy of the approach; '2009 Alameda placed 11.0 involuntary holds per 1,000 population, while the next highest county in California only placed 6.4 per 1,000 population'

Re: Time to bring back asylums?

#248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leave it to an HN commenter to suggest that a marginalized group face the most draconian, outlandish, unrealistic proposition as a viable solution. Might as well propose that we eat the homeless and mentally ill. Then we can complete the Jonathan Swift proposal and go back to the real world.

Let me steelman the suggestion then. Our western answer for when society is allowed to intervene against the will of an individual is when a law is broken. I agree that we shouldn't involuntarily commit people arbitrarily, but if you break the rules of society and engage in trespassing, theft, assault or sexual assault, etc then yes society should be allowed to intervene against your will. It then becomes a question…

I appreciate the good faith attempt to rationalize the idea, but it's fundamentally flawed.

We (as in Western Civilization living in post-Enlightenment liberalism) can't purport to respect human dignity and self-determination and also criminalize homelessness. And that's what jail is, criminalization. There is no "non-criminal" jail. In the United States, you can't be criminalized without due process, because fundamentally, a basic western human right is the right to personal dignity and autonomy.

Criminal recidivism is a problem. Some homeless or mentally ill people will be recidivist criminals. They should be punished for their crime after being afforded due process and any defenses thereto (e.g. lack of mental capacity). There are ways to handle criminal recidivism (in CA, famously, there's the "three-strikes" rule against multi-time felons). Apart from hardcore criminal-justice reformers, nobody disagrees with the idea of punishing crime according to the nature of the crime and increasing punishment for recidivism.

Being homeless is not a crime. Nor is it a crime to have mental illness. There are ample failures (drug war, lack of safety net, unwillingness to regulate predatory housing/investment, lack of accessible mental healthcare, social stigma, etc.) that cause homelessness/mental illness. All of which are indictments against society at large. It is anathema to a free, liberal culture to cause the problem and then punish it criminally.

To say that society only intervenes when a crime is committed is reductionist and wrong. There are plenty of civil remedies that restrain conduct (e.g. an "injunction"). More broadly, the government restrains conduct all the time for non-criminal matters (taxation, zoning permits, most financial or environmental regulation, intellectual property laws). Different efforts to restrain activity have different methods of enforcement. Including involuntary civil commitment. But for the reasons mentioned above regarding due process and personal autonomy, only crime is enforced by jail time.

We cannot claim to be a free, law-abiding, liberal democracy rooted in Western ideals and at the same time carte blanche suggest that "jail" is a categorical solution to homelessness and mental illness, as the parent commenter suggested. The type of thinking that the parent commenter proposed is anti-democratic, anti-western, and candidly, fascist. There are plenty of places people can move to if they want to live in that type of society, but none of them claim to be Western in design.

Re: Time to bring back asylums?

#249
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you must imagine that you will be subjected to asylums as they existed. No you don't. Nobody is advocating for that. Nobody is saying we should follow the same broken standards that led to locking up people for protesting, or that we should allow abuse and rape. Do you not think there is any middle ground between raping protestors and letting people with violent schizophrenia live in a tent on the street?

You cannot advocate to bring back an institution and then lie about what that institution was. The asylum institution was a way to label people as insane regardless of their sanity and then subject them to heinous mistreatment for which they had no recourse. Unless you directly address this, you are simply advocating for the re-implementation of institutional abuse.

It's rather obtuse to suggest anyone is arguing to take a Delorian back to 1955 and bring back asylums completely intact with nurse Ratched.

Yeah, how about full-service gas stations and Doowop hits too?

Re: Time to bring back asylums?

#250
I think it might be worth digging a little deeper into the causes, from this article, https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2022/05/31/...

"Between 2008 and 2019, the percentage of adolescents (ages 12 to 17) that reported having experienced at least one major depressive episode in the past year increased nearly 90 percent, from 8.3 percent in 2008 to 15.7 percent in 2019"

As m463 highlights, 'But later state mental illness funding was cut.'

Does the cut in funding correlate with the rise in problems?

Post reply on HN