[Magdalen] Washington Post article on involuntary hospitalization of the mentally ill

Sun Feb 15 06:32:09 UTC 2015

This varies greatly depending on where you live.  When I started in the
field in 1975, we were just breaking down the long term asylum model, and
real community care was coming into existence.  Even then, a person would
only be hospitalized (New York State, mind you) if they were found to be a
danger to self or others. So just because a person is very unpleasant to
others was not grounds for admission.  Mind you, I'm not talking about
involuntary commitment; I'm talking about even voluntary commitment.  If
someone volunteers to be admitted, this does not mean they will be.
Likewise, a person with suicidal thoughts is not necessarily going to be
admitted. There are large differences in suicidal tendencies.  Folks think
that if there "seems to be reason to be concerned," that a person can just
get committed, and that's simply not true.  There are standards that have
to be met.  It's not about someone being worrisome; it's about there being
demonstrable reason to suspect the person is a danger to self (or others)
The days when someone can be admitted "just because" are gone, and rightly
so.

Yes, if someone was admitted, there generally are good, solid reasons for
it.

James W. Oppenheimer-Crawford
*“If you have a chance to accomplish something that will make things better
for people coming behind you, and you don’t do it, you're wasting your time
on this Earth.”  -- *Roberto Clemente

On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Susan Hagen <susanvhagen at gmail.com> wrote:

> I forgot suicide and self-harm.  People try over and over again to
> kill themselves and come very close to succeeding.
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Susan Hagen <susanvhagen at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Kate, whatever model you believe in as the cause, people are almost
> > always considered for involuntary confinement because their outward
> > behavior has become troubling.  It may be disorderly conduct, petty
> > crime, family members or neighbors reporting that they are isolating
> > themselves and not eating or taking care of their hygiene.  They
> > themselves may call the police to report that family or neighbors are
> > trying to kill them.  They may assault family or emergency responders
> > who try to help them.  There are a thousand things that may trigger an
> > intervention.   I listen to people who have been stabilized and
> > according to their self report they were just fine, minding their own
> > business when the jack booted storm troopers broke in and hauled them
> > away.  Their history documents very different circumstances.  What is
> > supposed to happen?  Do they belong in jail?  Should they starve?
> > Threaten people?
> >
> > I don't know the answers to any of these questions.  I do think that
> > sometimes people need to be in a secure place where they can get care
> > and I don't think that jail is the right place.
> >
> > Susan
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:18 PM, Kate Conant <kate.conant at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> I know the details, but that doesn't make it right.  I don't know what
> >> other diseases make one "eligible" for involuntary confinement.  This
> just
> >> highlights the societal prejudice (and that is just as true among the
> >> medical community--at least around here).
> >>
> >> "What does the Lord require of you, but to do justice, love mercy, and
> walk
> >> humbly with your God?"
> >> Micah 6:8
> >>
> >> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 7:12 PM, James Oppenheimer-Crawford <
> >> oppenheimerjw at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In most situations, the standard is two physicians (generally
> >>> psychiatrists) sign off on the patient being dangerous to himself or to
> >>> others.  The patient is held for a period of 72 hours, during which the
> >>> professionals decide whether or not to apply for a court commitment. At
> >>> both of those junctures, the patient often simply elects to become a
> >>> voluntary commitment.  The court can commit for up to 90 days, I
> believe.
> >>> The State pays attorneys to represent the patients, and yes, they
> sometimes
> >>> do in fact get the patient released when the State pros would have
> >>> preferred to keep them, but generally everyone tries very hard to have
> a
> >>> meeting of the minds.
> >>>
> >>> The time when the patient really truly is trying to be released and the
> >>> State is resisting, there is usually a very debilitating mental illness
> >>> making the patient unable to discern their need for care and
> protection.
> >>> Generally the patient is a danger to themselves, not to others. I wish
> Mr.
> >>> Hopkins would publicly acknowledge that his role is utterly fictitious.
> >>> Some folks think his character is typical. It's not.  At all, at all.
> >>>
> >>> James W. Oppenheimer-Crawford
> >>> *"If you have a chance to accomplish something that will make things
> better
> >>> for people coming behind you, and you don't do it, you're wasting your
> time
> >>> on this Earth."  -- *Roberto Clemente
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Kate Conant <kate.conant at gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > The biggest problem I see with commitment laws is that they are
> >>> > discriminate treatment of the so-called "mentally ill".  They have
> the
> >>> > court system deciding what someone's "diagnosis" is and then shafting
> >>> them
> >>> > for it.  Brain disorders are medical disorders.
> >>> >
> >>> > Kate
> >>> >
> >>> > "What does the Lord require of you, but to do justice, love mercy,
> and
> >>> walk
> >>> > humbly with your God?"
> >>> > Micah 6:8
> >>> >
> >>> > On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 8:04 PM, James Oppenheimer-Crawford <
> >>> > oppenheimerjw at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > > "...no good can come out of the Iowa Writers' Workshop
> >>> > > "
> >>> > > .
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Might be a short story in there struggling to get out.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > James W. Oppenheimer-Crawford
> >>> > > *"If you have a chance to accomplish something that will make
> things
> >>> > better
> >>> > > for people coming behind you, and you don't do it, you're wasting
> your
> >>> > time
> >>> > > on this Earth."  -- *Roberto Clemente
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Before enlightenment pay bills, do laundry.  After enlightenment pay
> > bills, do laundry.
>
>
>
> --
> Before enlightenment pay bills, do laundry.  After enlightenment pay
> bills, do laundry.
>