> in an effort to ensure the autonomy and rights of those with mental illness, we > created a system where you have to be violent to be taken seriously, and whe

> in an effort to ensure the autonomy and rights of those with mental illness, we > created a system where you have to be violent to be taken seriously, and where > absent violence the people who love you most and know you best have no recourse > for forcing you into treatment when you desperately need it. That's the thing -- it's not against the law to be crazy. And, crazy or not, people have rights. I (barely) knew a guy who had serious problems for years, nothing could be done until he started a major forest fire. People in the community knew he was a problem, and that it was only a matter of time until he did something beyond petty vandalizm and misbehavior. But couldn't really do anything about it until he set fire to a neighbors cabin over a petty feud and ended up burning (IIRC) ~23,000 acres at a cost of ~$23 million [1]. So, what to do before it happens? Earlier intervention? Childhood programs? Enforce future crimes? Benign neglect? There has also been a huge amount of cost cutting and outright dishonesty regarding public health. In California, Ronald Regan was famous for cutting funding to the public mental health system, promising to fund community mental health. Then he renigged on his promise and refused fund community mental health. Mental health care has been a clear problem since then, at least. I don't know the answer, and, given the whole US system, there might not be a good solution. That said, one idea towards a solution is for seriously mentally ill people to be able to sign away some of their rights. I know, it's a dangerous idea, but, assuming they can give informed consent when they are "sane". (Yes, it's a real problem to get right). Conceivably they sign a waiver such that, if their mental state deteriorates enough, then they can be forced to be institutionalized and medicated for a short term -- long enough to be stabilized. Right now that can't happen without their consent. Although there is an informal system where this is exactly what happens -- some of the larger jails have psych wards where patients are stabilized via meds or whatever. It's already happening, it's just done via the criminal justice system. I'm just suggesting that there should just be a system for the same that's done via the medical system, out in the open, with proper accountability and supervision. > If ever there’s been a tragedy of good intentions, there it is. The Best Minds > is a chronicle of that tragedy. I think it’s the best book about mental > illness I’ve ever read. I haven't read the book, so take this with a grain of salt, please. I can't speak to the specific case of Michael Laudor. However, the parent comment is about "Violence and mental illness have been legally entangled" which is pretty general. It certainly is a tragedy. And it is partially a tragedy of good intentions, but it's not only a tragedy of good intentions. There are a lot of conflicting interests. For example, there are people don't want to pay taxes to support good programs, and acively work against public health programs. There were a lot of abuses of the mentally ill in the past via involuntary commitment, and that should not be repeated. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Fire_(2018) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Fire_(2018)