7 ms·

This is why I don't seek professional help. In the US we treat depression as a clinical disease, but more a massive weakness. If you get diagnosed, it's hard to

This is why I don't seek professional help. In the US we treat depression as a clinical disease, but more a massive weakness. If you get diagnosed, it's hard to keep living a normal life. The State comes in and never leaves. You can never get back to normal. They will say your depression is in regression. I know how you feel. I'd rather preserve my right to kill myself than have it medicated, occasionally by force, by the State.

tptacek 10y ago
I have a number of friends with serious, diagnosed mental health issues, and it has not been my experience with any of them that the State has come in at all, let alone refused to leave. What in your experience suggests otherwise?
- virmundi 10y ago
  If you have a registered firearm some jurisdictions will demand the weapon. If you refuse, you get Baker Act'ed. Once they take the firearm, they hold it because they do not view a depressive as mentally fit, ever, for it. You can also go on a registry of mentally defects which prevent you from purchasing another firearm. Some employers covertly access the same list making it hard to get gainful employment in more sensitive tech areas.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    I'm sorry, what list are you referring to, that tech employers consult to discriminate against people with health problems?
    - virmundi 10y ago
      They can run background checks which include mental illness. That same gun report can be run by non-sellers. http://everytown.org/press/new-fbi-data-shows-mental-health-records-in-background-check-system-tripled-since-release-of-fatal-gaps-report-pressed-states-to-submit-records-of-prohibited-gun-purchasers/ http://everytown.org/press/new-fbi-data-shows-mental-health-...
      - tptacek 10y ago
        That sounds incredibly illegal. Which tech companies have you heard about doing that? That would be a major news story, wouldn't it?
        logfromblammo 10y ago
        I applied to Intergraph once, and they wanted me to sign a release for a consumer profile report. I wrote onto the form that they had to give me a complete copy of the report, struck out a few objectionable lines, initialed the changes, and signed the form. They immediately ended the interview process. They could not give me a copy of any portion of the report due to "confidentiality agreements". I deciphered that as they were using information to discriminate between qualified candidates that is at best shocking to the conscience, and at worst blatantly illegal. You cannot know if the company is breaking the law if they rigorously suppress any evidence of it.
        tptacek 10y ago
        I have some experience with background checks, since I ran a consulting firm and had major financial firms as clients, all of which do this kind of background checking, and while I don't think it's at all unreasonable to withdraw from consideration over credit checking (I would too), I think you probably overreacted --- because it is in fact true that you're contractually not allowed to share background check reports with their subjects.
        adrienne 10y ago
        That contractual requirement is unconscionable in and of itself, of course! But that's a different problem.
        logfromblammo 10y ago
        That seems like a convenient way to get away with libel. My real name is so common that every state likely has a person with the same name and surname with a criminal record. There was another person with my name at my high school. There is another person with my name at my current employer. In the past, there were three people with my name in the corporate email directory. With credit reporting, if a company gives you less than their best offer as a result of derogatory information on your credit report, they are obligated to furnish you with a copy of it at their expense. So you might understand why I might like to know if a company is passing me over for consideration because of information given them by a third party that I cannot see, verify, or rebut. I have zero faith that companies that perform background checks never make mistakes. That confidentiality clause for background check reports is ethically similar (but less vile) to a clause in a murder contract that requires the payer and the murderer to keep the existence of the contract secret from everyone, particularly the intended victim. You can't contract your way out of culpability for libel. Besides that, they were the ones that told me to go pound sand just because I wouldn't give them carte blanche permission to investigate me.
- tcj_phx 10y ago
  > and it has not been my experience with any of them that the State has come in at all, let alone refused to leave. My friend got trapped with a court order for treatment - see my comment history. Most of the drugs her psychiatrists force her to take actually cause the conditions they supposedly treat. The doctors pretend that her condition was not caused by the street pharmacy, or by her efforts to counteract the akathisia (restlessness caused by neuroleptics aka tranquilizers aka "anti-psychotics"). http://www.psychrights.org http://www.psychrights.org is a great resource for those who are concerned about being stripped of the right to refuse ineffective medical care.
  - JBReefer 10y ago
    I believe you. That said, my friend just tried to kill herself because she couldn't get anyone, including the State, to help her with BPD. There's also a TON of literature about how the inability to voluntarily commit family members is horrific for everyone around them, including innocent bystanders. This is probably the most moving: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/magazine/when-my-crazy-father-actually-lost-his-mind.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/magazine/when-my-crazy-fat...
    - tptacek 10y ago
      The acute mental health care system in the US is a travesty, something I believe we'll look back on in 50 years with horror. I don't doubt it has some effectiveness and that it ultimately helps many people, but I wouldn't want to be the person mounting the argument that it is blameless or unfairly maligned; it isn't maligned enough. But: acute mental health care happens for a pretty short period of time, and then, from what I can tell, "the State" gets completely out of the picture.
      - tcj_phx 10y ago
        > But: acute mental health care happens for a pretty short period of time, and then, from what I can tell, "the State" gets completely out of the picture. This is not what I've observed. If you have a court order for outpatient treatment and miss your appointments, they'll issue an arrest warrant, for example.
BeetleB 10y ago
>This is why I don't seek professional help. In the US we treat depression as a clinical disease, but more a massive weakness. If you get diagnosed, it's hard to keep living a normal life. The State comes in and never leaves. You can never get back to normal. They will say your depression is in regression. This is the extreme scenario, and relatively rare (at least for adults). I spoke to my PCP about my potential issues. He said I had two choices: Medication or counseling. I chose the latter. Nothing pushy. Both the counselor and my PCP also recommended against a formal diagnosis of what condition I thought I had, because: 1. There is no cure. 2. The non-medicative treatments (i.e. counseling, behavioral therapy) is exactly the same for people who have my condition as those who do not but only have some symptoms. 3. Given the above two, why bother with a diagnosis? (Additionally, without a diagnosis, it can't be on a record anywhere - not my concern but it addresses yours). 4. My condition was causing problems in my life, but from a doctor's standpoint, was not too serious (i.e. not about to harm myself or others). This whole "State coming in and never leaving" is rare. Probably more common for children, though.

tptacek 10y ago

I have a number of friends with serious, diagnosed mental health issues, and it has not been my experience with any of them that the State has come in at all, let alone refused to leave. What in your experience suggests otherwise?

virmundi 10y ago
If you have a registered firearm some jurisdictions will demand the weapon. If you refuse, you get Baker Act'ed. Once they take the firearm, they hold it because they do not view a depressive as mentally fit, ever, for it. You can also go on a registry of mentally defects which prevent you from purchasing another firearm. Some employers covertly access the same list making it hard to get gainful employment in more sensitive tech areas.
- tptacek 10y ago
  I'm sorry, what list are you referring to, that tech employers consult to discriminate against people with health problems?
  - virmundi 10y ago
    They can run background checks which include mental illness. That same gun report can be run by non-sellers. http://everytown.org/press/new-fbi-data-shows-mental-health-records-in-background-check-system-tripled-since-release-of-fatal-gaps-report-pressed-states-to-submit-records-of-prohibited-gun-purchasers/ http://everytown.org/press/new-fbi-data-shows-mental-health-...
    - tptacek 10y ago
      That sounds incredibly illegal. Which tech companies have you heard about doing that? That would be a major news story, wouldn't it?
      - logfromblammo 10y ago
        I applied to Intergraph once, and they wanted me to sign a release for a consumer profile report. I wrote onto the form that they had to give me a complete copy of the report, struck out a few objectionable lines, initialed the changes, and signed the form. They immediately ended the interview process. They could not give me a copy of any portion of the report due to "confidentiality agreements". I deciphered that as they were using information to discriminate between qualified candidates that is at best shocking to the conscience, and at worst blatantly illegal. You cannot know if the company is breaking the law if they rigorously suppress any evidence of it.
        tptacek 10y ago
        I have some experience with background checks, since I ran a consulting firm and had major financial firms as clients, all of which do this kind of background checking, and while I don't think it's at all unreasonable to withdraw from consideration over credit checking (I would too), I think you probably overreacted --- because it is in fact true that you're contractually not allowed to share background check reports with their subjects.
        adrienne 10y ago
        That contractual requirement is unconscionable in and of itself, of course! But that's a different problem.
        logfromblammo 10y ago
        That seems like a convenient way to get away with libel. My real name is so common that every state likely has a person with the same name and surname with a criminal record. There was another person with my name at my high school. There is another person with my name at my current employer. In the past, there were three people with my name in the corporate email directory. With credit reporting, if a company gives you less than their best offer as a result of derogatory information on your credit report, they are obligated to furnish you with a copy of it at their expense. So you might understand why I might like to know if a company is passing me over for consideration because of information given them by a third party that I cannot see, verify, or rebut. I have zero faith that companies that perform background checks never make mistakes. That confidentiality clause for background check reports is ethically similar (but less vile) to a clause in a murder contract that requires the payer and the murderer to keep the existence of the contract secret from everyone, particularly the intended victim. You can't contract your way out of culpability for libel. Besides that, they were the ones that told me to go pound sand just because I wouldn't give them carte blanche permission to investigate me.
tcj_phx 10y ago
> and it has not been my experience with any of them that the State has come in at all, let alone refused to leave. My friend got trapped with a court order for treatment - see my comment history. Most of the drugs her psychiatrists force her to take actually cause the conditions they supposedly treat. The doctors pretend that her condition was not caused by the street pharmacy, or by her efforts to counteract the akathisia (restlessness caused by neuroleptics aka tranquilizers aka "anti-psychotics"). http://www.psychrights.org http://www.psychrights.org is a great resource for those who are concerned about being stripped of the right to refuse ineffective medical care.
- JBReefer 10y ago
  I believe you. That said, my friend just tried to kill herself because she couldn't get anyone, including the State, to help her with BPD. There's also a TON of literature about how the inability to voluntarily commit family members is horrific for everyone around them, including innocent bystanders. This is probably the most moving: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/magazine/when-my-crazy-father-actually-lost-his-mind.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/magazine/when-my-crazy-fat...
  - tptacek 10y ago
    The acute mental health care system in the US is a travesty, something I believe we'll look back on in 50 years with horror. I don't doubt it has some effectiveness and that it ultimately helps many people, but I wouldn't want to be the person mounting the argument that it is blameless or unfairly maligned; it isn't maligned enough. But: acute mental health care happens for a pretty short period of time, and then, from what I can tell, "the State" gets completely out of the picture.
    - tcj_phx 10y ago
      > But: acute mental health care happens for a pretty short period of time, and then, from what I can tell, "the State" gets completely out of the picture. This is not what I've observed. If you have a court order for outpatient treatment and miss your appointments, they'll issue an arrest warrant, for example.

BeetleB 10y ago

>This is why I don't seek professional help. In the US we treat depression as a clinical disease, but more a massive weakness. If you get diagnosed, it's hard to keep living a normal life. The State comes in and never leaves. You can never get back to normal. They will say your depression is in regression. This is the extreme scenario, and relatively rare (at least for adults). I spoke to my PCP about my potential issues. He said I had two choices: Medication or counseling. I chose the latter. Nothing pushy. Both the counselor and my PCP also recommended against a formal diagnosis of what condition I thought I had, because: 1. There is no cure. 2. The non-medicative treatments (i.e. counseling, behavioral therapy) is exactly the same for people who have my condition as those who do not but only have some symptoms. 3. Given the above two, why bother with a diagnosis? (Additionally, without a diagnosis, it can't be on a record anywhere - not my concern but it addresses yours). 4. My condition was causing problems in my life, but from a doctor's standpoint, was not too serious (i.e. not about to harm myself or others). This whole "State coming in and never leaving" is rare. Probably more common for children, though.