3 ms·

They need to change the legal standard for involuntary commitment to a psych ward. At present, the standard is that as long as the patient is not a danger to ot

They need to change the legal standard for involuntary commitment to a psych ward. At present, the standard is that as long as the patient is not a danger to others, they are allowed to roam the streets at will. I think a better standard is to broaden it to where if they can't take care of themselves, they can be involuntarily committed. That used to be called "vagrancy" and was a crime. I would find some middle road where it is not a crime, but a civil order.

accountface 10y ago
> the patient is not a danger to others or themselves >I would find some middle road where it is not a crime, but a civil order. In the past this road has lead to people being committed because someone just didn't like them. Broadening committal to people deemed not acceptable by society is a dangerous path.
nickpinkston 10y ago
If they're not a danger to others why not allow them to do what they want? So you can be more comfortable?
- jdbernard 10y ago
  In my experience it's very hard to prove to the standard required for the authorities to intervene. Basically you have to wait until they have already hurt someone before action can be taken. And it's even worse if they are only a danger to themselves. Worse still if they are simply incapable of sustaining themselves rather than actively suicidal. Believe it or not many of these people have relatives and friends who do care about them, deeply, but are powerless to help them because in their delusions they have violently rejected their help. I've watched a friend of mine starve nearly to point of death on the street and be unable to do anything to help him other than take him to lunch whenever I could.
cat199 10y ago
> if they can't take care of themselves By this definition, everyone on welfare can be incarcerated in a mental institution at any time without cause.. Not mentally ill? Well, perhaps you are, we'll take you in for another screening.

accountface 10y ago

> the patient is not a danger to others or themselves >I would find some middle road where it is not a crime, but a civil order. In the past this road has lead to people being committed because someone just didn't like them. Broadening committal to people deemed not acceptable by society is a dangerous path.

nickpinkston 10y ago

If they're not a danger to others why not allow them to do what they want? So you can be more comfortable?

jdbernard 10y ago
In my experience it's very hard to prove to the standard required for the authorities to intervene. Basically you have to wait until they have already hurt someone before action can be taken. And it's even worse if they are only a danger to themselves. Worse still if they are simply incapable of sustaining themselves rather than actively suicidal. Believe it or not many of these people have relatives and friends who do care about them, deeply, but are powerless to help them because in their delusions they have violently rejected their help. I've watched a friend of mine starve nearly to point of death on the street and be unable to do anything to help him other than take him to lunch whenever I could.

cat199 10y ago

> if they can't take care of themselves By this definition, everyone on welfare can be incarcerated in a mental institution at any time without cause.. Not mentally ill? Well, perhaps you are, we'll take you in for another screening.