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

381–390 of 397 posts

Re: Time to bring back asylums?

#381

Post by EatingWithForks »

imgabe wrote: post #369
EatingWithForks wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in a major city that is constantly described as having an epidemic of homeless people. I am far more annoyed by delinquent, housed teenagers than I am of the homeless population here. And more people die from reckless drivers than are murdered by insane homeless people-- in fact, a little girl was killed in a hit and run this year a few streets from me, and 0 murders by insane homeless people have happened in…

> I'm pointing out that you must absolutely contend with the fact that marginalized people have historically been labeled mentally ill when they fight for equality And I am pointing out that all people, marginalized or not, are currently subject to violence and harassment by the untreated mentally ill, right now. Not historically, currently. If one party starts telling voters that they care more about hypothetical in…

Why are you calling the actual, historically factual sexual assaults of women in asylums to be "hypothetical inconveniences for marginalized people"? I guess that's what it means to be marginalized, that the harm done to you and how your life has been ruined is an inconvenience.

The only reason why the rape of women in asylums is historical is because we no longer have asylums. If you want to bring back asylums, justify how you're not going to also be bringing back raping women in them.

Re: Time to bring back asylums?

#382

Post by freeone3000 »

nradov wrote: post #320
freeone3000 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Fewer people are starving than ever before, all because of capitalism. What alternative are you proposing? You are always welcome to donate food to the hungry, as many of us do.

Ah yes, when I give food to the poor I’m a good person, when the person who profits off of the sale of food (record profits in 2022!) is morally neutral.

Re: Time to bring back asylums?

#383

Post by swivelmaster »

coryrc wrote: post #255
swivelmaster wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re not going back far enough. https://calmatters.org/justice/2019/03/hard-truths-about-dei...

There are no dollar amounts in that article.

Oh okay so I guess it must not be true then...?

https://www.kqed.org/news/11209729/did-the-emptying-of-menta...

"1967 Ronald Reagan is elected governor of California. At this point, the number of patients in state hospitals had fallen to 22,000, and the Reagan administration uses the decline as a reason to make cuts to the Department of Mental Hygiene. They cut 2,600 jobs and 10 percent of the budget despite reports showing that hospitals were already below recommended staffing levels."

"1967 Reagan signs the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act and ends the practice of institutionalizing patients against their will, or for indefinite amounts of time. This law is regarded by some as a “patient’s bill of rights”. Sadly, the care outside state hospitals was inadequate. The year after the law goes into effect, a study shows the number of mentally ill people entering San Mateo's criminal justice system doubles."

"1973 The number of patients in California State mental hospitals falls to 7,000."

So in six years the number of patients in state [mental] hospitals falls from 22,000 to 7,000, and in the FIRST YEAR ALONE after the initial cuts the number of mentally ill patients entering the criminal justice system in just one county doubles.

This was on the first page of the google results.

Re: Time to bring back asylums?

#384

Post by TurkishPoptart »

htss2013 wrote: post #367
m463 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone with direct experience with someone that has a mental illness, there needs to be something better than the present system. I think something went right, then wrong with the treatment of mental illness in california. Years ago, when the laws were changed to allow mentally-ill but benign or even non-ill people to escape the "snake pits", lots of people could recover. But later state mental illness funding wa…

>Now clearly mentally ill people - who needed help - were turned away unless they were clearly "a danger to themselves and others". People talk as if this standard is the source of problems, but it's a fine standard. We just don't enforce it. Eg, if a homeless drug addict overdoses and is brought back by the fire dept with narcan, this is clearly someone who is a danger to themselves. They should be treated no differ…

A devil's advocate view is, if someone has no regard for their own wellbeing, why should taxpayers be forced to foot the bill for their care? There are resources for those who want rehab, food, and a safe place to sleep in my city, but if those people want to keep using dangerous drugs, it complicates everything else.

Re: Time to bring back asylums?

#385

Post by sangnoir »

m463 wrote: post #299
sangnoir wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of "action" would you want the police to take?

Well, "they are admitted and start to receive guided treatment". Unfortunately the police will tell you bluntly: "It's not against the law to be crazy" More unfortunately, medical personnel have told me that unless a treatment regimen with appropriate medication starts, the brain will deteriorate and chances of a full recovery disappear.

> Well, "they are admitted and start to receive guided treatment

Unless there's a separate medical system for the homeless/ mentally ill - I just don't see how it'd work. The American healthcare system is fucked, and cannot be unfucked for just the homeless (who can't pay). Most people are happy to ignore the state of affairs until there's an untreated schizophrenic hanging out in front of their favourite Avocado Toast joint.

Unless mental illness is criminalized, police have no business detaining the mentally ill or forcing them into treatment.

Re: Time to bring back asylums?

#386

Post by wolverine876 »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #212
wolverine876 wrote: post #67

A step like this one establishes the precedent. In a few years, the WSJ will be advocating locking up people they don't like, making they case that they are ipso facto mentally unstable, a threat to society, etc. How about protesters? Left-wing ones, of course. Many people in business arguably belong in an asylum - how about the wealthiest person in the world? how about some WSJ op-ed writers? crypto bros? some SV VC…

> In a few years, the WSJ will be advocating locking up people they don't like Okay but if we need to fear the opinion of the WSJ, we're already screwed. What's stopping them from advocating for locking up people they don't like right now ? How does the existence of asylums suddenly turn this frightening power of mind-control that you seem to imply that the WSJ has into a real threat?

I'm not sure what you mean. Obviously the WSJ is influential but not to the extreme of mind control. Also, advocating a half-step forward is easier than advocating 2 or 3 steps forward. I think you know those things, but I'm not sure what you are saying.

Re: Time to bring back asylums?

#387

Post by phendrenad2 »

EatingWithForks wrote: post #349
phendrenad2 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot interpret people's meaning however you want. If someone wants to "bring back asylums" it's entirely possible (and from the context here, very likely) that they want to bring "back" a version of asylums that never technically existed, but nevertheless both this new thing and the old thing are in the "asylums" category.

If you want to "bring back" something that never existed, you have to address what the thing actually was that you want to bring back-- and more importantly emphasize what will actually be different. You cannot merely lie about what that thing was you're bringing back, or handwave that its different now because the year is different. There is ample evidence that government officials will sexually assault people, traf…

No two things at different points in time are identical, so it's technically impossible to bring back something that did exist. I mean, while we're stuck on semantics, let's just do the full thing, no?

Re: Time to bring back asylums?

#388

Post by wolverine876 »

moose_man wrote: post #141
wolverine876 wrote: post #67

A step like this one establishes the precedent. In a few years, the WSJ will be advocating locking up people they don't like, making they case that they are ipso facto mentally unstable, a threat to society, etc. How about protesters? Left-wing ones, of course. Many people in business arguably belong in an asylum - how about the wealthiest person in the world? how about some WSJ op-ed writers? crypto bros? some SV VC…

How often do you ride public transit? Experiences in the past month include being threatened with horrific assault for just saying I didn't have cash on me and a bus ride where a guy talked to me the whole ride about how he was about to murder the bus driver. That's just recent.

Often for many years, in major cities, including in poorer neighborhoods. I've never had one experience like that. It's so placid I can sleep; I see people helping each other, etc. I also see people commonly keeping to themselves - it's not all rainbows and unicorns.

I don't believe that so many have had so many extreme experiences as they report, though of course I don't know you personally.

Re: Time to bring back asylums?

#389

Post by wolverine876 »

gruez wrote: post #134
wolverine876 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I read from that post is that you are outraged, or acting outraged, and want to abuse other people as a result. It's hard to find any specific argument in the comment otherwise. > The past 20 years of the "compassion" approach According to research, the problem is rising housing prices, not compassion. Human rights are also not compassion. It's sick how trendy it is to disdain compassion, human rights, and any o…

>According to research, the problem is rising housing prices, not compassion While this might be true for the homeless population as a whole, I suspect the parent is talking about the people with mental illness and/or substance abuse problems. Making rent 20% cheaper or whatever isn't going to magically make them get better.

Actually, from experts I've read, the best first step is stable housing. It's hard for me, with all my resources and normal functioning, to change my life; I couldn't imagine doing it while living on the street, wondering where my next meal and shelter are coming from. These people add other obstacles to what I face.

Re: Time to bring back asylums?

#390

Post by wolverine876 »

aschearer wrote: post #85
wolverine876 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rhetorical tactic keeps winning. It works so well that, even though they've been doing in much of the rich world (Murdoch in the English-speaking portion) for decades, you still can't even describe the tactic and don't know why they use it. Why would they stop unless they start losing with it?

Well don't keep it all to yourself. Break it down for me so I can understand.

The point is, you need to think about it for yourself.
Post reply on HN