4 ms·

Anyone surprised? We're seeing occurrences of 'the plague' and TB in skid row. This is what happens when we allow people to living in squalor. At some point we

Anyone surprised? We're seeing occurrences of 'the plague' and TB in skid row. This is what happens when we allow people to living in squalor. At some point we as a society need to make a statement that living outside, even seemingly by choice, especially in context of mental illness or drug addiction is not something that should be respected or tolerated. We're at the point where cities (spurred on by activists) have exempted homeless population from all municipal regulations and decided that allowing people with drug addiction and mental illness to live in squalor, and filth is a basic human right that trumps forceful institutionalization. I really don't understand why forced institutionalization into highly regulated institutions, staffed by clinical professionals is so evil. Worse, a social worker friend of mine in the homeless space, highlighted one issue that I wasn't even aware of. She says she sees young people who are 'homeless' as a lifestyle choice, using (and draining) resources earmarked for the chronic homeless (typically those suffering from mental illness). She is convinced that this group is at least partially responsible for the large part of the waste in this space.

x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
In the US we used to have such institutionalization. That disappeared when the country elected Reagan. https://sites.psu.edu/psy533wheeler/2017/02/08/u01-ronald-reagan-and-the-federal-deinstitutionalization-of-mentally-ill-patients/comment-page-1/ https://sites.psu.edu/psy533wheeler/2017/02/08/u01-ronald-re...
- CryptoPunk 6y ago
  That started to disappear long before Reagan. The deinstitutionalization movement was a left-wing one that started in the 60s. It was also not entirely without merit. The abuse that still happens in these types of institutions is obscene. Even elderly care homes, where the patients are not confined to the facility against their will, are rife with abuse. The alternative to that abuse we now see is much worse, with thousands upon thousands of the drug-using homeless dead from overdoses. But I think we can do better than abusive institutions, and the current activist-spawned free-for-all, where the mentally ill have no boundaries imposed on them.
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    >The abuse that still happens in these types of institutions is obscene. I would like to see some good studies on this. I do wonder if the scale of the problem was really as large as you make it out to be. I suspect not. It also raises the question why not simply implement better policy and better oversight, instead of wholesale closure, which as you argued, is much worse.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  Two issues with that. Deinstitutionalisation was not just an American phenomenon, with similar movements in other Western countries. Second, the timeline doesn't line-up. By the 1980s Deinstitutionalisation was well underway, and it wasn't necessarily a federal driver because the states were the ones running the system. Deinstitutionalisation was a combination of changing attitudes by public (hollywood movies certainly did not help with movies like 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest'), activism, courts strengthening rights to the point where institutionalization was not possible, and yes, cost cutting by States.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Chris2048 6y ago
> have exempted homeless population from all municipal regulations and decided that allowing people with drug addiction and mental illness to live in squalor, and filth is a basic human right The people that take such a view often get hysterical over non-homeless people refusing to wear masks. I think it implies an build-in double-standard.

x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago

In the US we used to have such institutionalization. That disappeared when the country elected Reagan. https://sites.psu.edu/psy533wheeler/2017/02/08/u01-ronald-reagan-and-the-federal-deinstitutionalization-of-mentally-ill-patients/comment-page-1/ https://sites.psu.edu/psy533wheeler/2017/02/08/u01-ronald-re...

CryptoPunk 6y ago
That started to disappear long before Reagan. The deinstitutionalization movement was a left-wing one that started in the 60s. It was also not entirely without merit. The abuse that still happens in these types of institutions is obscene. Even elderly care homes, where the patients are not confined to the facility against their will, are rife with abuse. The alternative to that abuse we now see is much worse, with thousands upon thousands of the drug-using homeless dead from overdoses. But I think we can do better than abusive institutions, and the current activist-spawned free-for-all, where the mentally ill have no boundaries imposed on them.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >The abuse that still happens in these types of institutions is obscene. I would like to see some good studies on this. I do wonder if the scale of the problem was really as large as you make it out to be. I suspect not. It also raises the question why not simply implement better policy and better oversight, instead of wholesale closure, which as you argued, is much worse.
macspoofing 6y ago
Two issues with that. Deinstitutionalisation was not just an American phenomenon, with similar movements in other Western countries. Second, the timeline doesn't line-up. By the 1980s Deinstitutionalisation was well underway, and it wasn't necessarily a federal driver because the states were the ones running the system. Deinstitutionalisation was a combination of changing attitudes by public (hollywood movies certainly did not help with movies like 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest'), activism, courts strengthening rights to the point where institutionalization was not possible, and yes, cost cutting by States.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Chris2048 6y ago

> have exempted homeless population from all municipal regulations and decided that allowing people with drug addiction and mental illness to live in squalor, and filth is a basic human right The people that take such a view often get hysterical over non-homeless people refusing to wear masks. I think it implies an build-in double-standard.