5 ms·

How about keeping 4-15 year olds locked away against their will, when they'd much rather run out into the street than be in the kindergarten or school? Or e.g.

by sershe 8y ago

How about keeping 4-15 year olds locked away against their will, when they'd much rather run out into the street than be in the kindergarten or school? Or e.g. dragging them away from the candy aisle by force, or forcing them to go to bed when they'd rather watch TV at night? How about keeping 15-year-olds locked out of pubs and arbitrarily forbidding them to operate a vehicle (severely restricting their freedom of movement in much of the US) against their will? You can discuss the finer points of various restrictions, but there's nothing morally wrong with restricting someone with reduced mental capacity, below some basic level of competence, according to their mental capacity.

jonathanstrange 8y ago
That's a false analogy. You have to bear in mind that the diagnosis of mental diseases has a fairly high failure rate and many behaviour that used to be classified as a mental disease has turned out to be perfectly fine.
- macspoofing 8y ago
  That's your argument? That modern psychology and psychiatry is incapable of diagnosing debilitating conditions like schizophrenia in an individual living in a filthy tent-city - therefore we should err on the side of caution to such an extent that we cannot make a judgement call on anybody?
  - jonathanstrange 8y ago
    Of course we should err on the side of caution when deciding whether to lock someone against his will for an indefinite time into a psychiatric facility. What else did you think? Do you have any idea about the guidelines for psychiatric evaluation of such cases and their judicial oversight? Why the hurdles are set high? I don't believe you have, to be honest. Maybe you start by thinking about how you would like to be treated if you happen to start suffering from schizophrenia, and then read up a bit on freedom and other fundamental human rights. Then you could read up on actual laws and the guidelines for psychiatric evaluations. Then at least you would have something to say. > therefore we should err on the side of caution to such an extent that we cannot make a judgement call on anybody? Well, I haven't said that, you're replying to a strawman. There is also no need to use an ominous "we". There are psychiatrists who make the judgement call under judicial oversight and their main criterion is, of course, whether the patient poses any imminent danger to himself or others. This is regulated by existing laws and procedures. Anything beyond that is illegal and, as I have argued, also immoral. Overall, I have to say that some of the replies I've seen in this thread are far below the usual level of HN. It seems that some people have a personal vendetta against homeless people, or otherwise I can't explain that behaviour. At least, I seriously doubt that the same people would be willing to suggest that their mother or their wife should get locked up in a mental ward against their will if they happen to get ill from schizophrenia but nevertheless do not pose any danger to themselves or others - which was the premise of that discussion, mind you.
    - macspoofing 8y ago
      >Why the hurdles are set high? I don't believe you have, to be honest. And I agree with that. Those standards should be high. The problem is that they seem to be so high as to make it impossible when looking at actual policies of West-coast municipalities. >Well, I haven't said that, you're replying to a strawman. I am really trying to understand what the standard is that you're advocating for because thus far it seems like it should never be the case that a homeless person with a mental illness is institutionalized. >It seems that some people have a personal vendetta against homeless people, or otherwise I can't explain that behaviour. That is an unfair assessment and you know it. The fundamental disagreement is that because we're talking about people who cannot make decisions because of debilitating mental illness some of us argue that therefore we should make certain decisions for them - one of which is, to provide them with care in a better setting than a tent-city. We're not talking about incarcerating or institutionalizing a 20-something that decides to live in a van. Have you actually done any work with homeless? The face of homelessness is the face of drug addiction and/or debilitating mental illness. I suspect that there are people who still view homelessness in light of great depression where the homeless where those of sound mind simply seeking work, or run into some bad luck, and not have enough money to pay for housing. This is not the reality of homelessness in our society. >At least, I seriously doubt that the same people would be willing to suggest that their mother or their wife should get locked up in a mental ward against their will if they happen to get ill from schizophrenia Are you serious? It isn't even close. I would absolutely want my loved one to get the care they need instead of languishing in the streets. This isn't a choice between an individual living in a nice apartment with family and friends being around the corner to take care of their needs, and a government mental institution. This is a choice between being in a filthy, dangerous tent-city exposed to the elements or a government mental institution. It is a no-brainer. How could you think otherwise???!?!? Maybe it is the specific handicap that you're objecting to. Maybe you think you can be a functional schizophrenic to the extent that you can choose to live in a tent-city in filth and therefore that right should be respected. But what about others? What about someone suffering from Alzheimer's or dementia - when those people wind up homeless, is it OK to institutionalize them??? Or still not? I'm really struggling to understand your standard here, because it's easy to say that every individual has a fundamental right not to be 'locked up' (as you put it), but then I don't know how you square that with realities on the ground that these people end up in atrocious circumstances.
- sershe 8y ago
  Is it a more reliable predictor of mental incapacity than an arbitrary number of revolutions of a planet against a star, the one we use for driving, voting, drinking, and even straight up confinement as with schools?
DanBC 8y ago
> but there's nothing morally wrong with restricting someone with reduced mental capacity, below some basic level of competence, according to their mental capacity. You state this like it's obvious, but it really isn't that obvious and there are severe problems with detention of people who don't pose a risk of hamr to themselves or others. And there's even problems if they only pose a risk of harm to themselves. The UK sees people banged up for years becuase they pose a risk of harm to themselves, when what they really need is better community treatment.
- macspoofing 8y ago
  >You state this like it's obvious, But it is. We do that all the time like, for example, during criminal proceedings. We understand that an individual with particular mental handicaps may not be fully (or at all) capable of making rational decisions and therefore should not bear the full responsibility for their actions. >when what they really need is better community treatment. What do you think 'community treatment' means!?!?!? You let them live in a filthy tent, with no clean water, no sanitation, no protection from the elements, with an occasional visit from a social worker to make sure they don't have cholera and have a blanket so they don't die from exposure?? That's your definition of 'community treatment'???
- sershe 8y ago
  I'm pretty sure I would have been fine driving a car as soon as I could reach the pedals, and school was a waste of time after 5th grade; why did they restrict my freedom when in the latter case I'd at most harm myself? There were obvious and severe problems with that. Somehow we decided that after a certain age you can do whatever you want (more or less) and the constraints that arise from the fact that you are incapable, and dependent on care, stop applying. THAT is a completely arbitrary standard. The only argument I can think in favor of this is that arbitrary age-based standard is much harder to abuse. But that is a (valid) implementation problem, not a moral one.

by sershe 8y ago

jonathanstrange 8y ago

That's a false analogy. You have to bear in mind that the diagnosis of mental diseases has a fairly high failure rate and many behaviour that used to be classified as a mental disease has turned out to be perfectly fine.

macspoofing 8y ago
That's your argument? That modern psychology and psychiatry is incapable of diagnosing debilitating conditions like schizophrenia in an individual living in a filthy tent-city - therefore we should err on the side of caution to such an extent that we cannot make a judgement call on anybody?
- jonathanstrange 8y ago
  Of course we should err on the side of caution when deciding whether to lock someone against his will for an indefinite time into a psychiatric facility. What else did you think? Do you have any idea about the guidelines for psychiatric evaluation of such cases and their judicial oversight? Why the hurdles are set high? I don't believe you have, to be honest. Maybe you start by thinking about how you would like to be treated if you happen to start suffering from schizophrenia, and then read up a bit on freedom and other fundamental human rights. Then you could read up on actual laws and the guidelines for psychiatric evaluations. Then at least you would have something to say. > therefore we should err on the side of caution to such an extent that we cannot make a judgement call on anybody? Well, I haven't said that, you're replying to a strawman. There is also no need to use an ominous "we". There are psychiatrists who make the judgement call under judicial oversight and their main criterion is, of course, whether the patient poses any imminent danger to himself or others. This is regulated by existing laws and procedures. Anything beyond that is illegal and, as I have argued, also immoral. Overall, I have to say that some of the replies I've seen in this thread are far below the usual level of HN. It seems that some people have a personal vendetta against homeless people, or otherwise I can't explain that behaviour. At least, I seriously doubt that the same people would be willing to suggest that their mother or their wife should get locked up in a mental ward against their will if they happen to get ill from schizophrenia but nevertheless do not pose any danger to themselves or others - which was the premise of that discussion, mind you.
  - macspoofing 8y ago
    >Why the hurdles are set high? I don't believe you have, to be honest. And I agree with that. Those standards should be high. The problem is that they seem to be so high as to make it impossible when looking at actual policies of West-coast municipalities. >Well, I haven't said that, you're replying to a strawman. I am really trying to understand what the standard is that you're advocating for because thus far it seems like it should never be the case that a homeless person with a mental illness is institutionalized. >It seems that some people have a personal vendetta against homeless people, or otherwise I can't explain that behaviour. That is an unfair assessment and you know it. The fundamental disagreement is that because we're talking about people who cannot make decisions because of debilitating mental illness some of us argue that therefore we should make certain decisions for them - one of which is, to provide them with care in a better setting than a tent-city. We're not talking about incarcerating or institutionalizing a 20-something that decides to live in a van. Have you actually done any work with homeless? The face of homelessness is the face of drug addiction and/or debilitating mental illness. I suspect that there are people who still view homelessness in light of great depression where the homeless where those of sound mind simply seeking work, or run into some bad luck, and not have enough money to pay for housing. This is not the reality of homelessness in our society. >At least, I seriously doubt that the same people would be willing to suggest that their mother or their wife should get locked up in a mental ward against their will if they happen to get ill from schizophrenia Are you serious? It isn't even close. I would absolutely want my loved one to get the care they need instead of languishing in the streets. This isn't a choice between an individual living in a nice apartment with family and friends being around the corner to take care of their needs, and a government mental institution. This is a choice between being in a filthy, dangerous tent-city exposed to the elements or a government mental institution. It is a no-brainer. How could you think otherwise???!?!? Maybe it is the specific handicap that you're objecting to. Maybe you think you can be a functional schizophrenic to the extent that you can choose to live in a tent-city in filth and therefore that right should be respected. But what about others? What about someone suffering from Alzheimer's or dementia - when those people wind up homeless, is it OK to institutionalize them??? Or still not? I'm really struggling to understand your standard here, because it's easy to say that every individual has a fundamental right not to be 'locked up' (as you put it), but then I don't know how you square that with realities on the ground that these people end up in atrocious circumstances.
sershe 8y ago
Is it a more reliable predictor of mental incapacity than an arbitrary number of revolutions of a planet against a star, the one we use for driving, voting, drinking, and even straight up confinement as with schools?

DanBC 8y ago

> but there's nothing morally wrong with restricting someone with reduced mental capacity, below some basic level of competence, according to their mental capacity. You state this like it's obvious, but it really isn't that obvious and there are severe problems with detention of people who don't pose a risk of hamr to themselves or others. And there's even problems if they only pose a risk of harm to themselves. The UK sees people banged up for years becuase they pose a risk of harm to themselves, when what they really need is better community treatment.

macspoofing 8y ago
>You state this like it's obvious, But it is. We do that all the time like, for example, during criminal proceedings. We understand that an individual with particular mental handicaps may not be fully (or at all) capable of making rational decisions and therefore should not bear the full responsibility for their actions. >when what they really need is better community treatment. What do you think 'community treatment' means!?!?!? You let them live in a filthy tent, with no clean water, no sanitation, no protection from the elements, with an occasional visit from a social worker to make sure they don't have cholera and have a blanket so they don't die from exposure?? That's your definition of 'community treatment'???
sershe 8y ago
I'm pretty sure I would have been fine driving a car as soon as I could reach the pedals, and school was a waste of time after 5th grade; why did they restrict my freedom when in the latter case I'd at most harm myself? There were obvious and severe problems with that. Somehow we decided that after a certain age you can do whatever you want (more or less) and the constraints that arise from the fact that you are incapable, and dependent on care, stop applying. THAT is a completely arbitrary standard. The only argument I can think in favor of this is that arbitrary age-based standard is much harder to abuse. But that is a (valid) implementation problem, not a moral one.