2 ms·
Sadly, being on the streets and incapable of caring for oneself isn't considered a 'danger to self', at least in the eyes of the hospital that evaluated my form
by bryondowd 10y ago
Sadly, being on the streets and incapable of caring for oneself isn't considered a 'danger to self', at least in the eyes of the hospital that evaluated my former fiancee.
Personally, I think we need to set the bar for involuntary intervention higher than being an active threat. If someone doesn't have the mental wherewithal to not lose their coat in the middle of a cold snap, that seems like a clear indicator to me that they need help and their refusal shouldn't be taken any more seriously than their delusions.
I may be biased and embittered on this subject.
- sushid 10y agoTo me, freezing yourself to death seems like a case of 'danger to self' but I'm neither a lawyer nor a doctor. But in other situations, the question arises just like in the article. At what point do you want to dose the individual with a sense of reality? If their mentally-ill self is content with the life they lead and "curing" them of it will leave them empty, sad, and hollow (in addition to the side effects of medication), is the arguably a better option? If you factor in the fact that the hospital won't be there to help him rehab back into society, I can see the decision being difficult to make, as the author mentions.
- ThrustVectoring 10y agoI mean, it could be interpreted as a 'danger to self', but choosing that interpretation loses the hospital money. I'm saddened but not really surprised.
- psyc 10y agoThat may be the official standard, but in reality the evaluating psychiatrist commits you if he wants to, and they do sometimes err on the side of caution. So it's somewhat arbitrary depending on where you are and when.