4 ms·

Newsom proposes to force some homeless people into treatment

15 points by eth0up 5y ago

bckr 5y ago
> Some advocates for homeless people have objected to forced care, but Newsom told the San Francisco Chronicle it is past time to talk about civil rights when people who are clearly in distress are ranting in streets and frightening or even attacking others. > “There’s no compassion with people with their clothes off defecating and urinating in the middle of the streets, screaming and talking to themselves,” said Newsom, a former mayor of San Francisco. I support this. You wouldn't let an infant run wild in the streets.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- eth0up 5y ago
  Force won't remain limited to only those crapping, screaming and exposing themselves in public. There is great risk of such force being applied to all who are an inconvenience. This is a complex issue, but I'm certain an easy solution is a terrible solution. Will you still support this when, perhaps, it is a friend? There is also a bit of a national housing crisis, which may not be improved by inflation, shortages and massive global shifts. I wish we could smell our own stink and realize that the structure of our society has consequences, often exceedingly unfair and unjustified. Beauty is a noble fondness, but a treacherous god. We should consider making stronger sacrifices before violating invaluable liberties. They don't have to be unconditional tolerance, but anything dignified I suspect will require actual work. The proposed solution is weak, cruel, too easy and unfit for my conscience.
  - bckr 5y ago
    > Force won't remain limited to only those crapping, screaming and exposing themselves in public. Okay? What exactly do you mean by this? We expect force to be used in a lot of contexts. > Will you still support this when, perhaps, it is a friend? Be more specific? > We should consider making stronger sacrifices before violating invaluable liberties Again, please be more specific. I think the proposal is common sense. Should we work on the upstream issues? Yes. But first let's get the adults crapping on the sidewalk into protective custody. Let's regulate it, and subject it to heavy public oversight. > Beauty is a noble fondness, but a treacherous god. Perfection is the enemy of the good.
    - eth0up 5y ago
      1. Force may be used on all homeless, regardless of incontinence, verbiage or nudity. 2. Hubris. Don't underestimate how quickly things can change. All might be fine today, but look around... stability can be illusion. The probability of hard times seems to be rising for most. 3. Don't accept hasty final solutions, especially those easily abused. Have tolerance until a solution worthy of human dignity is devised. Forced medication isn't nice, especially when it's inappropriate. 4. Evil is another adversary of good. Sweeping humans under the social carpet and forcefully caging or drugging them against consent won't ever be good and certainly not perfect. But I will agree that infants shouldn't be doing such things, even if they could.
      - DiggyJohnson 5y ago
        Are you against any measure that allows any force to be used against any subset of the homeless population? I understand what you’re saying but you appear to be arguing for the status quo - which is failing.
        eth0up 5y ago
        No, I try to be reasonable. And no, no status quo. I don't intend to be insulting, but I think we are failing too, holistically.
        bckr 5y ago
        The name of the game is Kaos. Success will come and go on many time and space scales.
- timoth3y 5y ago
  > “There’s no compassion with people with their clothes off defecating and urinating in the middle of the streets, screaming and talking to themselves,” said Newsom, a former mayor of San Francisco We should still show compassion to the mentally ill. Get them off the streets. Use force if you must. Get them the help they need. But they are human beings and deserve compassion.
olliej 5y ago
Treatment of people with mental health disorders is a super complicated problem, and is obviously better dealt with before it becomes a big enough problem for someone to become homeless, but obviously many places have a huge homelessness problem and a disproportionate number have severe mental health issues. Some people say forcing treatment is acceptable, which as a general blanket statement I disagree with. However if you have a person who has a severe issue like later stages of schizophrenia, dementia, etc they may be in a position that they cannot make informed consent without receiving treatment that they by definition can’t consent to. I believe that the UN decided that that would be unethical, but in this case I would disagree. In the absence of initial treatment I would not consider that a person has in fact chosen not to be treated and in failing to provide initial treatment you are in effect robbing them of the opportunity to make a long term choice. The obvious follow on question is what you do if a person with a severe condition subsequently says no to further treatment. At that point forcing treatment is clearly unethical (LGBT were forced into “treatment” into the 70s for example). Historical options have included incarceration which functionally criminalizes anything classed as a mental health problem (see again treatment of lgbt people). You could wait until they perform a criminal act, which raises the question of why you let it get to that point, etc It seems like all the options are bad, and forced long term treatment seems clearly wrong, incarceration in a jail seems wrong, but historically mental health institutions have not been much better (and often times worse).
- tcj_phx 5y ago
  Robert Whitaker chronicles the deteriotation of mental health treatment in Mad In America. The Quakers had asylums for people who had 'episodes'. The clients were fed 4 meals a day and kept safe. 80-90% recovered to the point where they could leave the asylum. Non-quaker asylums were much less effective. Then the doctors started doctoring on psychotic patients... Labotomies, ECT (brain electrocution). These treatments didn't work at all. The use of ineffective treatment made Psychiatry an easy capture by the drug industry. See my other comment in this submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30549579 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30549579
  - olliej 5y ago
tcj_phx 5y ago
The tragedy of Allopathic Psychiatry is that the doctors think they know what they're doing. In March 2015, I thought my new friend had substance abuse problems: methadone, heroin, cocaine, alcohol. She invited me into her world. There were a few times when I watched her make herself psychotic when she used too much cocaine, but she came out of that state when the cocaine wore off and got some food. (Ref: my comment history.) The mental health industry captured her when she ran out of alcohol (see Mad In America link below) When you're ordered to submit to Allopathic Psychiatry, you can't complain about the forced medications' side effects. > Gov. Gavin Newsom said at a press conference that he has no intention of rounding people up and locking them away. Instead, he said his plan would offer a way for people to get court-ordered psychiatric treatment, medication and housing, preferably before they are arrested. My friend was arrested after the start of her court-ordered psychiatric treatment. She'd gotten a job, but couldn't handle the stress, self-medicated with alcohol, relapsed on meth amphetamine. Her doctors use their orders for involuntary treatment to force her to submit to medications that are specifically contraindicated for substance abuse. The probation court made her predicament even worse. I went to a few of my friend's probation court sessions. I remember a guy who complained about his forced treatment with Abilify (antipsychotic). The judge didn't care. The next time I saw him, he was like "Abilify is the greatest drug ever!". He graduated from probation court, don't know what happened to him. Probably back in the system: Abilify causes compulsive behaviors. After my friend had been forcibly treated for about 2+ years, all the new clients at her "dual diagnosis" drug treatment program were getting cheek swabbed. She asked for this genetic test for herself, and learned that she can't turn the provitamin folic acid (shelf stable, used to fortify food) into methylated forms of folate (Vitamin B-9, used for DNA synthesis). Her doctors don't care, and continue to force her to take anti-psychotics because that's the only way they know to treat transient psychosis. The Mad in America Foundation posted my writeup about my efforts on my friend's behalf: Malignant Do-gooderism: The Tragedies of Allopathic Psychiatry https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30388925 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30388925 Someone who read the link above reached out to me over Twitter. This woman had experienced postpartum depression -> postpartum psychosis -> orders for involuntary mental health treatment. She was also in Arizona - I recognized many of the facilities she'd named. She described what they did to her as 'torture'. She was able to escape with the help of her sister, who negotiated with the psychiatrists on her behalf, until she was able to negotiate for herself. SCOTUS denied my petition. I intend to seek congressional oversite. I'm going to film a video to explain my earlier videos, which prove my friend was fine before she ran out of alcohol, and proving fraud on the United States Court. Psychiatry would be exponentially more effective if they'd stop treating their patients allopathically. Edit: Submitted a WSJ article recently, had to change the title to something less click-baity: 'Report about a case of hydrocephalus mistaken for 'mental illness'" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30354625 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30354625

15 points by eth0up 5y ago

bckr 5y ago

> Some advocates for homeless people have objected to forced care, but Newsom told the San Francisco Chronicle it is past time to talk about civil rights when people who are clearly in distress are ranting in streets and frightening or even attacking others. > “There’s no compassion with people with their clothes off defecating and urinating in the middle of the streets, screaming and talking to themselves,” said Newsom, a former mayor of San Francisco. I support this. You wouldn't let an infant run wild in the streets.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
eth0up 5y ago
Force won't remain limited to only those crapping, screaming and exposing themselves in public. There is great risk of such force being applied to all who are an inconvenience. This is a complex issue, but I'm certain an easy solution is a terrible solution. Will you still support this when, perhaps, it is a friend? There is also a bit of a national housing crisis, which may not be improved by inflation, shortages and massive global shifts. I wish we could smell our own stink and realize that the structure of our society has consequences, often exceedingly unfair and unjustified. Beauty is a noble fondness, but a treacherous god. We should consider making stronger sacrifices before violating invaluable liberties. They don't have to be unconditional tolerance, but anything dignified I suspect will require actual work. The proposed solution is weak, cruel, too easy and unfit for my conscience.
- bckr 5y ago
  > Force won't remain limited to only those crapping, screaming and exposing themselves in public. Okay? What exactly do you mean by this? We expect force to be used in a lot of contexts. > Will you still support this when, perhaps, it is a friend? Be more specific? > We should consider making stronger sacrifices before violating invaluable liberties Again, please be more specific. I think the proposal is common sense. Should we work on the upstream issues? Yes. But first let's get the adults crapping on the sidewalk into protective custody. Let's regulate it, and subject it to heavy public oversight. > Beauty is a noble fondness, but a treacherous god. Perfection is the enemy of the good.
  - eth0up 5y ago
    1. Force may be used on all homeless, regardless of incontinence, verbiage or nudity. 2. Hubris. Don't underestimate how quickly things can change. All might be fine today, but look around... stability can be illusion. The probability of hard times seems to be rising for most. 3. Don't accept hasty final solutions, especially those easily abused. Have tolerance until a solution worthy of human dignity is devised. Forced medication isn't nice, especially when it's inappropriate. 4. Evil is another adversary of good. Sweeping humans under the social carpet and forcefully caging or drugging them against consent won't ever be good and certainly not perfect. But I will agree that infants shouldn't be doing such things, even if they could.
    - DiggyJohnson 5y ago
      Are you against any measure that allows any force to be used against any subset of the homeless population? I understand what you’re saying but you appear to be arguing for the status quo - which is failing.
      - eth0up 5y ago
        No, I try to be reasonable. And no, no status quo. I don't intend to be insulting, but I think we are failing too, holistically.
        bckr 5y ago
        The name of the game is Kaos. Success will come and go on many time and space scales.
timoth3y 5y ago
> “There’s no compassion with people with their clothes off defecating and urinating in the middle of the streets, screaming and talking to themselves,” said Newsom, a former mayor of San Francisco We should still show compassion to the mentally ill. Get them off the streets. Use force if you must. Get them the help they need. But they are human beings and deserve compassion.

olliej 5y ago

Treatment of people with mental health disorders is a super complicated problem, and is obviously better dealt with before it becomes a big enough problem for someone to become homeless, but obviously many places have a huge homelessness problem and a disproportionate number have severe mental health issues. Some people say forcing treatment is acceptable, which as a general blanket statement I disagree with. However if you have a person who has a severe issue like later stages of schizophrenia, dementia, etc they may be in a position that they cannot make informed consent without receiving treatment that they by definition can’t consent to. I believe that the UN decided that that would be unethical, but in this case I would disagree. In the absence of initial treatment I would not consider that a person has in fact chosen not to be treated and in failing to provide initial treatment you are in effect robbing them of the opportunity to make a long term choice. The obvious follow on question is what you do if a person with a severe condition subsequently says no to further treatment. At that point forcing treatment is clearly unethical (LGBT were forced into “treatment” into the 70s for example). Historical options have included incarceration which functionally criminalizes anything classed as a mental health problem (see again treatment of lgbt people). You could wait until they perform a criminal act, which raises the question of why you let it get to that point, etc It seems like all the options are bad, and forced long term treatment seems clearly wrong, incarceration in a jail seems wrong, but historically mental health institutions have not been much better (and often times worse).

tcj_phx 5y ago
Robert Whitaker chronicles the deteriotation of mental health treatment in Mad In America. The Quakers had asylums for people who had 'episodes'. The clients were fed 4 meals a day and kept safe. 80-90% recovered to the point where they could leave the asylum. Non-quaker asylums were much less effective. Then the doctors started doctoring on psychotic patients... Labotomies, ECT (brain electrocution). These treatments didn't work at all. The use of ineffective treatment made Psychiatry an easy capture by the drug industry. See my other comment in this submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30549579 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30549579
- olliej 5y ago

tcj_phx 5y ago

The tragedy of Allopathic Psychiatry is that the doctors think they know what they're doing. In March 2015, I thought my new friend had substance abuse problems: methadone, heroin, cocaine, alcohol. She invited me into her world. There were a few times when I watched her make herself psychotic when she used too much cocaine, but she came out of that state when the cocaine wore off and got some food. (Ref: my comment history.) The mental health industry captured her when she ran out of alcohol (see Mad In America link below) When you're ordered to submit to Allopathic Psychiatry, you can't complain about the forced medications' side effects. > Gov. Gavin Newsom said at a press conference that he has no intention of rounding people up and locking them away. Instead, he said his plan would offer a way for people to get court-ordered psychiatric treatment, medication and housing, preferably before they are arrested. My friend was arrested after the start of her court-ordered psychiatric treatment. She'd gotten a job, but couldn't handle the stress, self-medicated with alcohol, relapsed on meth amphetamine. Her doctors use their orders for involuntary treatment to force her to submit to medications that are specifically contraindicated for substance abuse. The probation court made her predicament even worse. I went to a few of my friend's probation court sessions. I remember a guy who complained about his forced treatment with Abilify (antipsychotic). The judge didn't care. The next time I saw him, he was like "Abilify is the greatest drug ever!". He graduated from probation court, don't know what happened to him. Probably back in the system: Abilify causes compulsive behaviors. After my friend had been forcibly treated for about 2+ years, all the new clients at her "dual diagnosis" drug treatment program were getting cheek swabbed. She asked for this genetic test for herself, and learned that she can't turn the provitamin folic acid (shelf stable, used to fortify food) into methylated forms of folate (Vitamin B-9, used for DNA synthesis). Her doctors don't care, and continue to force her to take anti-psychotics because that's the only way they know to treat transient psychosis. The Mad in America Foundation posted my writeup about my efforts on my friend's behalf: Malignant Do-gooderism: The Tragedies of Allopathic Psychiatry https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30388925 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30388925 Someone who read the link above reached out to me over Twitter. This woman had experienced postpartum depression -> postpartum psychosis -> orders for involuntary mental health treatment. She was also in Arizona - I recognized many of the facilities she'd named. She described what they did to her as 'torture'. She was able to escape with the help of her sister, who negotiated with the psychiatrists on her behalf, until she was able to negotiate for herself. SCOTUS denied my petition. I intend to seek congressional oversite. I'm going to film a video to explain my earlier videos, which prove my friend was fine before she ran out of alcohol, and proving fraud on the United States Court. Psychiatry would be exponentially more effective if they'd stop treating their patients allopathically. Edit: Submitted a WSJ article recently, had to change the title to something less click-baity: 'Report about a case of hydrocephalus mistaken for 'mental illness'" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30354625 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30354625