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

391–397 of 397 posts

Re: Time to bring back asylums?

#391

Post by m463 »

sangnoir wrote: post #385
m463 wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Toa…

The problem is that "the homeless" start out as normal people - they have rational minds, have jobs/insurance and contribute to society. They can pay for treatment. Unfortunately they can have clear signs of deteriorating mental health and the system will not touch them. Then they lose their rationality, their jobs, their insurance and transition from contributing to society to burdening it.

This doesn't require a separate medical system, it requires prompt intervention/treatment at the beginning of the illness, not after many many visits.

Re: Time to bring back asylums?

#392

Post by wolverine876 »

_8j50 wrote: post #82
wolverine876 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you should be expelled from society for promulgating yet another sensationalist, inflammatory, absurd Internet theory. Why not? Who gets to say who is expelled? That's why we have human rights - people are free to do what they want, without giving a f- if you like it or not. You are free to do what you want without giving a f- if I like it or not. Yes, there are limits where we harm others. Let's be honest: P…

Take your own emotional reactions down a couple of notches there yourself first. Wtf! What part of what I said was an "internet theory" and exactly what are my other theories? Do you just mean ideas you merely react to at a surface level instead if attempting any level of undersranding or discourse?? > That's why we have human rights No, the only reason there are human rights is because people are human. > people are…

Forcing people into colonies (we might call them 'camps') is not oppression?

Re: Time to bring back asylums?

#393

Post by phendrenad2 »

wolverine876 wrote: post #386
phendrenad2 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> half-step forward is easier than advocating 2 or 3 steps forward

Walking up to a brick wall is easy, walking through the brick wall is hard (and painful). And yet I walk up to brick walls all the time, and don't fear that I'll accidentally go too far.

Re: Time to bring back asylums?

#395

Post by htss2013 »

TurkishPoptart wrote: post #384
htss2013 wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

>Someone has no regard for their own wellbeing, why should taxpayers be forced to foot the bill for their care?

Ethically, due to having their minds hijacked by addiction and/or mental illness, it is as if they're reduced to being children again. We don't put children on the street and respect their decisions to ruin their lives, because we understand they don't have the mental capacity to decide such things.

Practically, it's probably net cheaper for tax payers to force them to get clean or go to a mental hospital. But you have to account for all externalities and opportunity costs, which no one does.

Re: Time to bring back asylums?

#396

Post by sangnoir »

m463 wrote: post #391
sangnoir wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Toa…

The problem is that "the homeless" start out as normal people - they have rational minds, have jobs/insurance and contribute to society. They can pay for treatment. Unfortunately they can have clear signs of deteriorating mental health and the system will not touch them. Then they lose their rationality, their jobs, their insurance and transition from contributing to society to burdening it. This doesn't require a se…

> This doesn't require a separate medical system, it requires prompt intervention/treatment at the beginning of the illness, not after many many visits.

I fully agree. The same goes for cancer, dental health and countless other diseases and ailments. The solution is having a stronger social safety net - but America appears not to want that, so here we are.

Re: Time to bring back asylums?

#397

Post by iancmceachern »

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)

It's not or, its and.

and make healthcare accessible.

Post reply on HN