Should people be detained on grounds of mental health?

  • 9ZR3nUSp

    Posts: 7

    May 30, 2016 7:13 AM GMT
    Should the government have the power to detain people identified as having dangerous personality disorders?
  • FitBlackCuddl...

    Posts: 800

    May 30, 2016 3:48 PM GMT
    9ZR3nUSp saidShould the government have the power to detain people identified as having dangerous personality disorders?


    No. BECAUSE it is the government that is doing the defining of a "dangerous personality disorder".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2016 3:55 PM GMT
    So many out of control crazy people roaming the streets. Maybe a mental health hospital system that would house and take care of the addicts and deranged.
  • interestingch...

    Posts: 694

    May 30, 2016 4:09 PM GMT
    I would probably say no because a friend of mine whom is in her mid 60's for years was told by Dr's that she had a borderline personality disorder or mild schizophrenia but as it turns out all she had was lupus which has affected her brain instead of her joints like most people with the condition, the Dr's over the years treated her quite badly and she was even sectioned temporarily years ago and by chance after release a different Dr than the usual ones who spotted the condition straight away, I think its terrible what has happened to her, it has knocked her confidence in herself extremely badly, luckily she has many friends to help out if she is being a little manic which happens from time to time. She is now on meds and doing ok. If the Dr's had their way she would have been locked up years ago, its just laziness and lack of understanding and one or several peoples opinions that has had a bad impact on her life.
    Unless someone has a history of harming others then I would say no, if they have harmed others then maybe yes but instead of pumping them full of drugs, go down the counselling route, diet, investigate medical reasons for their behaviour including lack of minerals and vitamins which could cause their behaviour, kindness can go a long way to healing someone.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2016 4:47 PM GMT
    No, what is needed is to restore mental health funding to most cities, and municipalities. I can only speak here in San Francisco and California in general were our legislature and state government has cut this drastically to nothing. We are one of the worst states in the nation when it comes to supporting mental health services - there are none existent. You see an increase in the homeless that have mental issues or veterans which is quite sad, and they can pose a danger to the public. However, there needs to be a system where they are channeled back to shelters with mental services along to help them. Local police enforcement should be trained and work with local mental services counselor, social workers, etc., when they see someone causing dangerous behavior toward others, and is noted they have a mental disorder. This is not a liberal issue, is a health issue that can easily be funded.
  • FitBlackCuddl...

    Posts: 800

    May 30, 2016 8:43 PM GMT
    uombroca said You see an increase in the homeless that have mental issues or veterans which is quite sad, and they can pose a danger to the public. However, there needs to be a system where they are channeled back to shelters with mental services along to help them.


    Mental health services??? But that would COST money...the government point of view of homelessness, especially those with mental/emotional problems, is to MAKE money for businesses that house them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2016 9:52 PM GMT
    Americans want social services for free
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2016 9:58 PM GMT
    If our government would stop locking people up for smoking weed, they would have enough money resources to house the mentally ill. And yes, many people cannot be "fixed" and therefore should be housed somewhere where they can't hurt others or themselves.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 31, 2016 7:33 AM GMT
    FitBlackCuddler said
    uombroca said You see an increase in the homeless that have mental issues or veterans which is quite sad, and they can pose a danger to the public. However, there needs to be a system where they are channeled back to shelters with mental services along to help them.


    Mental health services??? But that would COST money...the government point of view of homelessness, especially those with mental/emotional problems, is to MAKE money for businesses that house them.


    And you know how much more money to incarcerate someone, feed them and being in prison, THAT IS BIG BUSINESS, $$$$, from the State that outsource to private companies, rather than given them the medical services they need along with employment opportunities, it has been proven that if you help someone with a mental disability that is still capable and not a threat not only are you making the community safer, they are also paying taxes based on that job, etc.

    In terms of paying of it, there is a simple thing you could impose a 5 cents on tourist attractions, hotels, etc. This would go to support mental services, along with employment services...again not saying is easy what I am saying is the amount of waste in taxes, etc. is better spent on actually solving a problem.
  • badbug

    Posts: 800

    May 31, 2016 7:45 AM GMT

    the power to detain people identified as having dangerous personality disorders?

    Is this about me?

    I would probably say no because a friend of mine whom is in her mid 60's for years was told by Dr's that she had a borderline personality disorder

    icon_eek.gif Do you live in Russia? It usually takes a fair amount to be confined against your will.

    It's kind of odd/interesting that a doctor would conflate BPD with mild schizophrenia. I wonder what sort of identity issues she was having.


    Americans want social services for free

    The army wants tanks for free.

    ??? Whose money is it if not the "Americans". Why is it poor people want money for free, but corporations getting subsidies and tax breaks and the military getting endless arms and senators getting fat pensions aren't thought of as wanting stuff for free?



  • ANTiSociaLiNJ...

    Posts: 1123

    May 31, 2016 8:07 AM GMT
    That settles it.

    It would appear that everyone wants something for free. icon_idea.gif
  • interestingch...

    Posts: 694

    May 31, 2016 9:56 AM GMT
    Its free in the UK but we pay for it indirectly through our taxes.
    If i was homeless on the street and had never paid tax but was a citizen and had a terminal illness or any medical needs, I would be treated from beginning to end, that is a good thing, the NHS may not be perfect but at least everyone has access to health care, you only pay for meds as an out patient, i'm talking pills and not chemo or anything like that, if you are under age or over 65 its all free, you only pay as a working adult, also the prices are not expensive and accessible to people who work.
  • FitBlackCuddl...

    Posts: 800

    May 31, 2016 1:57 PM GMT
    smartmoney saidSo many out of control crazy people roaming the streets. Maybe a mental health hospital system that would house and take care of the addicts and deranged.


    Then suddenly the government decides that "being gay" is an emotional issue (again)...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 31, 2016 2:07 PM GMT
    People who pose a danger to themselves or to others must be committed. The only relevant question is who pays for it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 01, 2016 8:00 PM GMT
    9ZR3nUSp saidShould the government have the power to detain people identified as having dangerous personality disorders?


    The government does have that power power- even though it is totally inept at addressing the issue of severe mental illness.

    Deinstitutionalization, the name given to the policy of moving people with serious brain disorders out of large state institutions and then permanently closing part or all of those institutions, has been a major contributing factor to increased homelessness, incarceration and acts of violence.
    http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/a-failed-history


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 01, 2016 10:56 PM GMT
    Depends on the level of crazy.

    The government has a duty to protect its citizens from each other and themselves.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 01, 2016 11:12 PM GMT
    FitBlackCuddler said
    smartmoney saidSo many out of control crazy people roaming the streets. Maybe a mental health hospital system that would house and take care of the addicts and deranged.


    Then suddenly the government decides that "being gay" is an emotional issue (again)...


    Don't be a moron. Being gay in and of itself doesn't cause people to be a physical danger to themselves or others. Even when it was considered a mental condition by the APA people weren't wholesale, indiscriminately locked up in looney bins. We have made some progress.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 01, 2016 11:20 PM GMT
    interestingchap saidIts free in the UK but we pay for it indirectly through our taxes.
    If i was homeless on the street and had never paid tax but was a citizen and had a terminal illness or any medical needs, I would be treated from beginning to end, that is a good thing, the NHS may not be perfect but at least everyone has access to health care, you only pay for meds as an out patient, i'm talking pills and not chemo or anything like that, if you are under age or over 65 its all free, you only pay as a working adult, also the prices are not expensive and accessible to people who work.


    You pay for it DIRECTLY through taxes as we should in the US. There are too many homeless, mentally ill people roaming the streets of our cities.
  • mybud

    Posts: 11821

    Jun 02, 2016 12:25 AM GMT
    The key word is "dangerous". It depends on who makes this determination.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2016 12:35 AM GMT
    mybud saidThe key word is "dangerous". It depends on who makes this determination.


    When you're a mental case and threatened to injure someone, I think that qualifies as dangerous.
  • mybud

    Posts: 11821

    Jun 02, 2016 12:43 AM GMT
    Not4u said
    mybud saidThe key word is "dangerous". It depends on who makes this determination.


    When you're a mental case and threatened to injure someone, I think that qualifies as dangerous.
    I've known friends who have stated their ex boyfriend was crazy and dangerous...only to find out later they were pissed they were dumped...That's why the person who makes said determination is of great importance...I'm out.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2016 4:03 AM GMT
    mybud said
    Not4u said
    mybud saidThe key word is "dangerous". It depends on who makes this determination.


    When you're a mental case and threatened to injure someone, I think that qualifies as dangerous.
    I've known friends who have stated their ex boyfriend was crazy and dangerous...only to find out later they were pissed they were dumped...That's why the person who makes said determination is of great importance...I'm out.


    Qualified mental health professionals make the determination. I seriously doubt anyone has ever been committed to an asylum based on the rantings of a jilted queen.
  • FitBlackCuddl...

    Posts: 800

    Jun 04, 2016 8:23 PM GMT
    Not4u said
    mybud said
    Not4u said
    mybud saidThe key word is "dangerous". It depends on who makes this determination.


    When you're a mental case and threatened to injure someone, I think that qualifies as dangerous.
    I've known friends who have stated their ex boyfriend was crazy and dangerous...only to find out later they were pissed they were dumped...That's why the person who makes said determination is of great importance...I'm out.


    Qualified mental health professionals make the determination. I seriously doubt anyone has ever been committed to an asylum based on the rantings of a jilted queen.


    People have been falsely sent to prison, to Death Row, on the word of "qualified professionals"...I bet the same likelihood exists for those in sanitariums.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2016 4:28 AM GMT
    They shouldn't. The government can't even handle all its homeless/locked up war veterans suffering from PTS. Let's start by releasing thousands of harmless citizens from our prisons and replace them with the hundreds of politicians and bankers who start all these wars on terrorism, guns, and drugs. A lot of Americans are lost because of how dependent they are on their unreliable government that detains us for profit.
  • rdberg1957

    Posts: 662

    Jun 09, 2016 5:07 AM GMT
    The current standard is that someone can be detained for 72 hours if there is evidence that they are a danger to themselves or others. This can be subject to manipulation. I have known of cases where a spouse told police that their spouse was mentally ill and a danger to their children. This was a domestic abuse situation and the one who told police was the one who endangered the children. Personality disorders are not a reason to detain someone on mental health grounds--dangerous behavior is a reasonable standard whether someone has any diagnosis or not.