4 ms·

>"Celina Alvarez, executive director of the nonprofit Housing Works, said the group needs to make clear that it has no intention of abusing the rights of those

>"Celina Alvarez, executive director of the nonprofit Housing Works, said the group needs to make clear that it has no intention of abusing the rights of those with a mental illness or rewriting the law governing involuntary treatment" Those with a mental illness are in this case unable to help themselves. It controls them. It's the illness that prevents them from getting help. They may refuse medical care but that's the illness talking. By not committing them to 'involuntary' hospitalization the state is allowing mental illness to slowly kill the suffering homeless population out on the street.

colechristensen 10y ago
This is a difficult avenue to walk because it's not very hard to define everyone not doing what you think is right as mentally ill and no longer deserving rights or choice. (see about half of dystopic science fiction)
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  > see about half of dystopic science fiction See Alan Turing.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  > This is a difficult avenue to walk because it's not very hard to define everyone not doing what you think is right as mentally ill and no longer deserving rights or choice. Well, we can start somewhere, right? Like fraudulent panhandling. Or the various forms of low-grade assault that is typically ignored rather than added to a history documenting mental illness. I have a neighbor who lives on her own that regularly forgets her husband is dead. She leaves the gas stove on. Is it that hard to hold the authorities accountable in documenting that history and certifying that (very sweet when healthy) lady as no longer qualified to live on her own?
- tjalfi 10y ago
  The O'Connor vs. Davidson decision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Connor_v._Donaldson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Connor_v._Donaldson) is another example.
dilap 10y ago
I think you put entirely too much faith in our ability to diagnose mental illness and entirely too little in respecting the wishes of the individuals themselves. To be able to say, "I diagnose you as sick, what you want is now invalid" is an incredibly powerful tool, and obviously open for abuse. Just a few decades ago homosexuality was considered a mental illness. Your line of reasoning would justify involuntary "treatments" for homosexuality. (And in fact, this sometimes happened.) Today, many of the homeless are likely suffering from schizophrenia. Drug-based treatments for schizophrenia have permanent, non-reversible side-effects, and lower the chance of recovery to basically zero. Today, as a non-schizophrenic person, I can tell you that if I did develop schizophrenia, I would not wish to be treated with those drugs. Would that wish suddenly become invalid because I was suffering from mental illness? To my mind, it's pretty evil to force someone to take a drug with permanent side-effects against their will.
- unethical_ban 10y ago
  I agree with the parent and with you. And that's the rub. If diagnosis were more accurate and peer-reviewed, with paths to release for all people, it may be more tolerable. But if someone can say "You're sick" and take you in, it's too dangerous.

colechristensen 10y ago

This is a difficult avenue to walk because it's not very hard to define everyone not doing what you think is right as mentally ill and no longer deserving rights or choice. (see about half of dystopic science fiction)

JumpCrisscross 10y ago
> see about half of dystopic science fiction See Alan Turing.
humanrebar 10y ago
> This is a difficult avenue to walk because it's not very hard to define everyone not doing what you think is right as mentally ill and no longer deserving rights or choice. Well, we can start somewhere, right? Like fraudulent panhandling. Or the various forms of low-grade assault that is typically ignored rather than added to a history documenting mental illness. I have a neighbor who lives on her own that regularly forgets her husband is dead. She leaves the gas stove on. Is it that hard to hold the authorities accountable in documenting that history and certifying that (very sweet when healthy) lady as no longer qualified to live on her own?
tjalfi 10y ago
The O'Connor vs. Davidson decision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Connor_v._Donaldson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Connor_v._Donaldson) is another example.

dilap 10y ago

I think you put entirely too much faith in our ability to diagnose mental illness and entirely too little in respecting the wishes of the individuals themselves. To be able to say, "I diagnose you as sick, what you want is now invalid" is an incredibly powerful tool, and obviously open for abuse. Just a few decades ago homosexuality was considered a mental illness. Your line of reasoning would justify involuntary "treatments" for homosexuality. (And in fact, this sometimes happened.) Today, many of the homeless are likely suffering from schizophrenia. Drug-based treatments for schizophrenia have permanent, non-reversible side-effects, and lower the chance of recovery to basically zero. Today, as a non-schizophrenic person, I can tell you that if I did develop schizophrenia, I would not wish to be treated with those drugs. Would that wish suddenly become invalid because I was suffering from mental illness? To my mind, it's pretty evil to force someone to take a drug with permanent side-effects against their will.

unethical_ban 10y ago
I agree with the parent and with you. And that's the rub. If diagnosis were more accurate and peer-reviewed, with paths to release for all people, it may be more tolerable. But if someone can say "You're sick" and take you in, it's too dangerous.