3 ms·

Evidence of suicidal ideation is a specific example (and probably the most common) of what gets people involuntarily admitted to a mental ward. In fact, there

Evidence of suicidal ideation is a specific example (and probably the most common) of what gets people involuntarily admitted to a mental ward. In fact, there are almost certainly more people admitted on that basis than actually have it, because if someone is not clearly a danger to themselves or others, but seriously needs help, the easiest way for emergency personnel to fudge it is by reporting a mention of suicide. Can you provide further context on what makes you think there is significant causation in the opposite direction?

R0b0t1 5y ago
No, you prove it. If incidence of suicidal ideation goes up with number of involuntary holds then it means that psych facilities are not treating the problem. That is enough: that they are provably not treating it. First do no harm means you have to be causing good; ambivalence is treated as likely harm because it is invasive.
- favorited 5y ago
  That's nonsense. You are not "provably not treating it" – you are provably not curing it. If the people who receive the most chemotherapy sessions have the highest rates of cancer deaths, does that mean that oncologists are "provably not treating" cancer?
  - R0b0t1 5y ago
    In those treatment there is a metric that indicates success. For this it is not so clear, the main indicators saying "does not knowably prevent death and raises possibility of future death."
    - favorited 5y ago
      The same metric exists here. Various cancer survivor rates are measured by the average number of years someone survives after diagnosis, regardless of the rate of remission. How many years of life does treatment buy a patient, given the kind of cancer and the stage at which it is discovered? Your argument is "more people who are suicidal enough to warrant involuntary commitment end up killing themselves than people who don't reach that point, therefore commitment causes (or at least does nothing to prevent) suicide," which is absolutely illogical. This is beyond "I don't understand 'correlation != causation,'" and is into either "willful ignorance" or "I enjoy hearing myself talk" territory.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  Prove what?

R0b0t1 5y ago

No, you prove it. If incidence of suicidal ideation goes up with number of involuntary holds then it means that psych facilities are not treating the problem. That is enough: that they are provably not treating it. First do no harm means you have to be causing good; ambivalence is treated as likely harm because it is invasive.

favorited 5y ago
That's nonsense. You are not "provably not treating it" – you are provably not curing it. If the people who receive the most chemotherapy sessions have the highest rates of cancer deaths, does that mean that oncologists are "provably not treating" cancer?
- R0b0t1 5y ago
  In those treatment there is a metric that indicates success. For this it is not so clear, the main indicators saying "does not knowably prevent death and raises possibility of future death."
  - favorited 5y ago
    The same metric exists here. Various cancer survivor rates are measured by the average number of years someone survives after diagnosis, regardless of the rate of remission. How many years of life does treatment buy a patient, given the kind of cancer and the stage at which it is discovered? Your argument is "more people who are suicidal enough to warrant involuntary commitment end up killing themselves than people who don't reach that point, therefore commitment causes (or at least does nothing to prevent) suicide," which is absolutely illogical. This is beyond "I don't understand 'correlation != causation,'" and is into either "willful ignorance" or "I enjoy hearing myself talk" territory.
perl4ever 5y ago
Prove what?